Hey All:

So it looks like we are all going to get fingerprinted, iris
scanned, and who know what else. Is this news to anybody? How
much opposition is there to the new ID requrements? What do you
folks think and feel?

I'm creeped out. I think our country is being taken over by a
bunch of paranoid freaks.

http://www.eaa.org/communications/eaanews/041209_certificates.html

--
Andrew

"Andrew Tubbiolo" > wrote in message
...
> So it looks like we are all going to get fingerprinted, iris
> scanned, and who know what else. Is this news to anybody? How
> much opposition is there to the new ID requrements? What do you
> folks think and feel?
>
> I'm creeped out. I think our country is being taken over by a
> bunch of paranoid freaks.

The country is being taken over by a bunch of opportunistic power-hungry
tyrants. They simply rely on the paranoid in order to achieve their goals.

As far as the potential for pilots being fingerprinted, I think it's as dumb
as all the other useless and wasteful so-called "security measures" we've
had to endure since 9/11.

I am literally nauseated that my "fellow" Americans have been so willing to
allow our own government to do the terrorists' dirty work for them. I try
not to think about it as much as possible, because it makes getting anything
else done so difficult.

Pete

> I think our country is being taken over by a
> bunch of paranoid freaks.

No it isn't. If you pull the lion's tail, you must expect to get bitten.

I have just been told that as of last Saturday, as a Brit living in
Canada, if I want to enter the US from Canada I have to be fingerprinted
and photographed - and pay for the privilege! And once isn't enough - I
have to do it every time that I enter.
You want to know something? I don't care. I can understand "most" of it.
If Canada had ****ed off as many Moslem countries as the US government
has in the last few years we'd be doing the same thing. And the fact
that they are serious about screening who comes in makes me feel
slightly safer when I'm there that if they weren't.

But there is one tiny detail that baffles me.
The Brits supported the American position in Iraq, fought alongside them
and are still there. The Canadians didn't.
So why the hell do the Brits get fingerprinted and photographed but
Canadians don't?

Is there nowhere in the US that teaches diplomacy 101?
Frankly I'm baffled.

Tony

--

Tony Roberts
PP-ASEL
VFR OTT
Night
Cessna 172H

In article >,
Andrew Tubbiolo > wrote:

> Hey All:
>
> So it looks like we are all going to get fingerprinted, iris
> scanned, and who know what else. Is this news to anybody? How
> much opposition is there to the new ID requrements? What do you
> folks think and feel?
>
> I'm creeped out. I think our country is being taken over by a
> bunch of paranoid freaks.
>
> http://www.eaa.org/communications/eaanews/041209_certificates.html

"tony roberts" > wrote in message
news:nospam-446053.00313715122004@shawnews...
> [...] If you pull the lion's tail, you must expect to get bitten.

I didn't pull the lion's tail. Why am I getting bit?

> [...]
> Is there nowhere in the US that teaches diplomacy 101?
> Frankly I'm baffled.

As if anything else going on these days makes any more sense.

As far as your specific issue goes, Canadians and Americans have a long
history of crossing each other's border unimpeded. I don't know what the
current requirements are, but it used to be you didn't need a passport or
anything of the sort to go back and forth, if you were a US or Canada
citizen. I guess it's simply politically more difficult to start
fingerprinting Canadians than Britons, since it would affect a much larger
number of people (not just Canadians either, since Americans would probably
wind up being affected by a reciprocal arrangement entering Canada).

I mean really, even assuming Great Britain starts fingerprinting US citizens
entering that country (or have they already? I don't know), it's not like
enough US citizens would be affected to cause any sort of political heat
within the US.

Pete

Andrew Tubbiolo wrote:
> I'm creeped out. I think our country is being taken over by a
> bunch of paranoid freaks.

You've been conditioned to think that.

And there you have it. That interesting word, political.

Finally the GAO comes out with a report stating that the vast majority
of GA aircraft are not a viable threat.

But TSA and HSA must look like they are doing something, so we have to
have idiot TFRs (targetted against GA, which isn't where the a/c came
from that penetrated the Pentagon, or took down the towers...),
inspections of people before they board a commercial airliner (breast
inspections, shoe inspections, strip searches, etc.). How many things
do they allow you to keep that can be used as a weapon?

Seems to me that there is a passage in the bible that says if you
disobey My commands (and by extension, throw Me out of your lives) you
shall flee where no one persues. Sure does seem to match.
Later,
Steve.T

"Brien K. Meehan" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Andrew Tubbiolo wrote:
> > I'm creeped out. I think our country is being taken over by a
> > bunch of paranoid freaks.
>
> You've been conditioned to think that.
>

I just hope those that are creeped out by these security measures don't
discover the mind-control implants in their teeth. We've sepnt a lot of
time and money installing those things, the first time, and some of you have
very bad breath.

--

Scott

"Arafat remains in stable condition after dying in a Paris hospital."

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 00:11:20 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote in
>::

>The country is being taken over by a bunch of opportunistic power-hungry
>tyrants.

I couldn't agree more. Karl Rove appears to be the ring leader of the
bunch. Be sure to listen to what NPR has to say:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=3887431

Karl Rove -- the man some call the president's Svengali.


http://www.bushsbrain.net/

“BUSH'S BRAIN” is a documentary that introduces the country to Karl
Rove, the man known as “Bush's Brain”, the most powerful political
figure America has never heard of, the Wizard of Oz behind the curtain
of today's Presidential politics. It is based on the best-selling book
BUSH'S BRAIN (Wiley, 2003) by journalists James Moore and Wayne
Slater.
Karl Rove is President George W. Bush's closest adviser. He is a man
who has almost single-handedly shaped the policies of our nation. A
brilliant tactician, ruthless opponent, savvy policy maker, and one of
the greatest political minds in the history of the Republic.

The relationship between Karl Rove and President George W. Bush is one
of the most unique political marriages in history. Feared and admired
by Republicans and Democrats alike, Rove has raised a new and
disturbing question for Americans: Who really runs the country?

Dubbed “the man with the plan” by “Dubya” himself, Karl Rove boldly
conceived and ruthlessly shaped the political career of our current
President to a degree never before seen in America. And he continues
to be a guiding force within the current Bush White House. His
influence marks a transcendent moment in American politics: the rise
of a political consultant to a position of unprecedented power.

BUSH'S BRAIN explores Rove's remarkable political journey and the
extraordinary role he has played in George Bush's rise to the top.
From his masterful political skills, to the secret machinations he has
carefully orchestrated, to his dramatic influence on foreign policy,
the fingerprints of Karl Rove can be found throughout the political
process.



http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0124/p01s02-uspo.html
"I think Karl has become more conservative over the past 20 years,"
says Richard Land, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty
Commission, an arm of the Southern Baptist Convention, who has known
Rove for two decades. "I think that is largely the president's
influence on him."

Observers also say both men are driven by the memory of what happened
to Bush's father - and that they both hold as a top priority keeping
the party's conservative base happy. Indeed, Mr. Land says this
administration has been far better in its outreach to social
conservatives than any other in his lifetime.

"In the Reagan administration, they took our calls," he says, but with
the current White House, "sometimes they call us."

http://www.bushsbrainthemovie.com/

Andrew Tubbiolo wrote:
> Hey All:
>
> So it looks like we are all going to get fingerprinted, iris
> scanned, and who know what else. Is this news to anybody? How
> much opposition is there to the new ID requrements? What do you
> folks think and feel?

The concept of a universal ID is very appealing to many. Fortunately,
we already have one-- our DNA. And, it requires a court order based on
probably cause to check it.

I've been fingerprinted 4 or 5 times in my life, voluntarily.
Application for cop school long ago, more recently my concealed handgun
license and renewal. It's a non issue to me.

I utilize a computerized pharmaceutical cabinet daily as an ICU/ER
nurse, and it uses a biometric scan of my finger in lieu of a typed
password... (and I DO have the option of not using the biometric, but it
impedes my job performance).

Positive identification to exercise a PRIVELEDGE (not a right) is not
too "big brother" for me.

Dave

Andrew Tubbiolo wrote:
> Hey All:
>
> So it looks like we are all going to get fingerprinted, iris
> scanned, and who know what else. Is this news to anybody? How
> much opposition is there to the new ID requrements? What do you
> folks think and feel?
>
> I'm creeped out. I think our country is being taken over by a
> bunch of paranoid freaks.
>
> http://www.eaa.org/communications/eaanews/041209_certificates.html
>

tony roberts wrote:
>
> But there is one tiny detail that baffles me.
> The Brits supported the American position in Iraq, fought alongside them
> and are still there. The Canadians didn't.
> So why the hell do the Brits get fingerprinted and photographed but
> Canadians don't?

No Canadian has tried to light his shoe lately.

George Patterson
The desire for safety stands against every great and noble enterprise.

I was issued my SEL in 2002, shortly after 9/11. I was astounded that
the ticket was just that, on an index card labeled "cut here". No
picture, fingerprint, nothing. Great, they use our Social Security
numbers, easy for ID theifs.

My NY driver's licence has picture, bar code, tamper-resistant glass
beading. Really, the FAA has to do something about tamper proofing the
ticket. A good call would be to go down to your local FSS, have them
take a picture and present proofs of identity, just like your local DMV
would do.

Fingerprinting is OK, but it should be included with the cost of your
ticket. Biometrics is taking it a little far, but it is expected these
days. I'd think that would be acceptable for non-US citizens here on an
education visa, a locator bracelet would be nice also for them.

Andrew Tubbiolo wrote:
>
> So it looks like we are all going to get fingerprinted, iris
> scanned, and who know what else.

From the AOPA web site -

"And buried within the huge bill is a provision requiring the FAA to start
issuing improved pilot certificates within a year. The pilot certificates must
be resistant to tampering and counterfeiting, include a photo of the pilot, and
may have the capability to store biometric information.

'We worked closely with key members of Congress to make sure that these new
requirements don't impose an undue burden on GA pilots,' said AOPA President
Phil Boyer. 'Adding a pilot's picture to the license has been debated for a long
time, we wanted to make sure pilots don't have to travel long distances to make
this happen.'

Thanks to AOPA's advocacy, the bill allows the FAA to use designees to process
the new certificates 'to the extent feasible in order to minimize the burdens on
pilots.'

'The allowance for designees means that an aviation medical examiner could take
a digital photo of the pilot as part of the exam and transmit the photo to the
FAA along with the medical data,' said Andy Cebula, AOPA senior vice president
of Government and Technical
Affairs. AMEs already send exam results to the FAA electronically. (See "Senate
passes bill
that includes photo pilot certificates.") 'Senators Jay Rockefeller of West
Virginia and Pat
Roberts of Kansas were willing to listen to AOPA about the realities of general
aviation and
modify the legislation to increase national security while minimizing the impact
on pilots,'
Cebula added.

The bill does not require pilots to immediately replace existing certificates
with new photo certificates. Pilots would likely get a photo certificate when
they add a new rating or certificate."


George Patterson
The desire for safety stands against every great and noble enterprise.

> Positive identification to exercise a PRIVELEDGE
> (not a right) is not too "big brother" for me.

Right. Then they start redefining what constitutes a privelage.
=That= is how the noose tightens.

Jose
--
Freedom. It seemed like a good idea at the time.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

> Andrew Tubbiolo wrote:
> >
> > So it looks like we are all going to get fingerprinted, iris
> > scanned, and who know what else.
>

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
> The bill does not require pilots to immediately replace existing
certificates
> with new photo certificates. Pilots would likely get a photo certificate
when
> they add a new rating or certificate."
>
>
> George Patterson
> The desire for safety stands against every great and noble
enterprise.

Every state has the requirement for a photo on your drivers license. And
the FAA already has access to your driving information, why can't they use
your DL photo on your pilot certificate? My wife has a employee photo ID at
DFW airport. We recently moved and she updated her drivers license online
(Texas). When her DL came in the mail it had her DFW Airport ID photo on
it. They can link it all together if they want to.

Allen

"WildBlueYonder76" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> I was issued my SEL in 2002, shortly after 9/11. I was astounded that
> the ticket was just that, on an index card labeled "cut here". No
> picture, fingerprint, nothing. Great, they use our Social Security
> numbers, easy for ID theifs.

I got mine issued (in July. 2002) sans SS# for that reason. For quite some
time IIRC you were able to get a random ID instead of your SS#.

>
> My NY driver's licence has picture, bar code, tamper-resistant glass
> beading. Really, the FAA has to do something about tamper proofing the
> ticket.
>

When was the last time you were asked for your pilot's license as a form of
identification? European driver's licenses look like our pilot certificates
because they have national ID cards that are more like our passports. In
this country the main reason drivers' licenses have become so complex is
primarily to make it harder for kids to get fake IDs to buy liquor. As a
result on nearly any college campus I've been to you'll find somebody who
knows how to obtain extremely high-quality false IDs. Of course you could
say the same for immigration paperwork too.

When I was in college (94-98) the staties busted a kid in the engineering
school with $50,000 worth of equipment in his room (idiot). I knew one of
the cops involved and he said the IDs he was turning out were utterly
indistinguishable even side-by-side with the real thing. Back then the going
rates were $75 for a crummy fake that might work in a nasty liquor store to
$150-200 for something you could get away with showing to a cop. I haven't
asked lately but I suspect that all that's changed is that they've gotten
more expensive.

-cwk.

"Andrew Tubbiolo" > wrote in message
...
> Hey All:
>
> So it looks like we are all going to get fingerprinted, iris
> scanned, and who know what else. Is this news to anybody? How
> much opposition is there to the new ID requrements? What do you
> folks think and feel?
>

I've already been badged and fingerprinted to get ramp access to my plane at
Hanscom Field. I just wish Massport could transmit my info to the FAA so I
don't have to go through the rigmarole again.

-cwk.

"tony roberts" > wrote in message
news:nospam-446053.00313715122004@shawnews...
....
> So why the hell do the Brits get fingerprinted and photographed but
> Canadians don't?
>
> Is there nowhere in the US that teaches diplomacy 101?
> Frankly I'm baffled.
>


Because money is the *only* diplomacy.

Massachusetts alone, exports 2.2 Billion with a B to Canada per year. The
total two-way trade is close to 450 Billion "the largest bilateral exchange
in the world", according to Canada's Trade Commission web site.

A Google search on ...USA "exports to Great Britain"... gets exactly *one*
hit. Add the separate word "statistics" and you get no hits at all.

Now I am sure that the USA must sell *something* to GB, but the internet is
sure silent about it.

Is it possible that it is not very much?

"Icebound" > wrote in message
...
>
> "tony roberts" > wrote in message
> news:nospam-446053.00313715122004@shawnews...
> ...
>> So why the hell do the Brits get fingerprinted and photographed but
>> Canadians don't?
>>
>> Is there nowhere in the US that teaches diplomacy 101?
>> Frankly I'm baffled.
>>
>
>
> Because money is the *only* diplomacy.
>
> Massachusetts alone, exports 2.2 Billion with a B to Canada per year. The
> total two-way trade is close to 450 Billion "the largest bilateral
> exchange in the world", according to Canada's Trade Commission web site.
>
> A Google search on ...USA "exports to Great Britain"... gets exactly *one*
> hit. Add the separate word "statistics" and you get no hits at all.
>
> Now I am sure that the USA must sell *something* to GB, but the internet
> is sure silent about it.
>
> Is it possible that it is not very much?
>
>
>

A little dated but very easy to find...

http://www.usitc.gov/er/nl2000/ER0828X1.HTM

August 28, 2000
News Release 00-114
Inv. No. 332-409
The ITC, an independent, nonpartisan, factfinding federal agency, recently
completed the report for the U.S. Senate Committee on Finance. Following are
highlights of the report:


a.. In 1998, the United Kingdom (UK) imported over $100 billion in goods
and services from the three North American countries and exported about $65
billion to North America. The United States is the UK's single largest
trading partner and accounts for about 90 percent of the UK's trade with
North America.

Allen wrote:
>
> Every state has the requirement for a photo on your drivers license.
> And the FAA already has access to your driving information, why can't
> they use your DL photo on your pilot certificate? My wife has a
> employee photo ID at DFW airport. We recently moved and she updated
> her drivers license online (Texas). When her DL came in the mail it
> had her DFW Airport ID photo on it. They can link it all together if
> they want to.

It's easy enough for a Texas airport authority to link up with the Texas
Department of Motor Vehicles (or whatever the agency is named) to exchange
information. However, trying to do that with 50 potentially completely
different systems is quite another matter. This doesn't even consider the
possibility of lack of digital storage and exchange capability by the state.

With that said, biometric identity is only going to become more prevalent.
I'm not necessarily opposed to having a means of proving "I am me".
However, the state having the ability to track my whereabouts or private
companies having the ability to identify me on a whim (without my approval)
is not a good idea, IMO. The former is an invasion of privacy and the
latter opens the door to targeted spam the likes of which the Internet
wished it had (Spielberg's "Minority Report" shows a sampling of what could
be).

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
____________________

-------------------------------------
"C Kingsbury" > wrote in message
.net...
>
>
> When was the last time you were asked for your pilot's license as a form
of
> identification? European driver's licenses look like our pilot
certificates
> because they have national ID cards that are more like our passports.


BTW did you notice that in the Intelligence bill there was also a provision
to make the Dept. of Homeland Security responsible for ensuring that all
drivers license conform to national requirement of ID? Basically DHS will be
developing a national ID. Which makes me wonder why we need another
identifier on our certificates.

At least the biometric they are talking about at this point is a photo. I
just hope they let us submit photos and not makes us show up at the FSDO for
a picture to be taken.

Scott

--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott F. Migaldi, K9PO
MI-150972
PP-ASEL-IA

Are you a PADI Instructor or DM? Then join the PADI
Instructor Yahoo Group at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PADI-Instructors/join
-----------------------------------
Catch the wave!
www.hamwave.com


"I can accept that Bush won the election. What I have a hard time
swallowing is that I live in a country where more than half the
population is willfully ignorant, politically obstinate, religiously
prejudiced, and embarrassingly gullible."

Don't forget the few foreign students wo still brave the 'improved' visa
requirements in order to train in the US, who won't have any of these in
place

-Barney

"John T" > wrote in message
m...
> Allen wrote:
> >
> > Every state has the requirement for a photo on your drivers license.
> > And the FAA already has access to your driving information, why can't
> > they use your DL photo on your pilot certificate? My wife has a
> > employee photo ID at DFW airport. We recently moved and she updated
> > her drivers license online (Texas). When her DL came in the mail it
> > had her DFW Airport ID photo on it. They can link it all together if
> > they want to.
>
> It's easy enough for a Texas airport authority to link up with the Texas
> Department of Motor Vehicles (or whatever the agency is named) to exchange
> information. However, trying to do that with 50 potentially completely
> different systems is quite another matter. This doesn't even consider the
> possibility of lack of digital storage and exchange capability by the
state.
>
> With that said, biometric identity is only going to become more prevalent.
> I'm not necessarily opposed to having a means of proving "I am me".
> However, the state having the ability to track my whereabouts or private
> companies having the ability to identify me on a whim (without my
approval)
> is not a good idea, IMO. The former is an invasion of privacy and the
> latter opens the door to targeted spam the likes of which the Internet
> wished it had (Spielberg's "Minority Report" shows a sampling of what
could
> be).
>
> --
> John T
> http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
> http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
> ____________________
>
>
>

"Icebound" > wrote in message
...
>
> "tony roberts" > wrote in message
> news:nospam-446053.00313715122004@shawnews...
> ...
>> So why the hell do the Brits get fingerprinted and photographed but
>> Canadians don't?
>>
>> Is there nowhere in the US that teaches diplomacy 101?
>> Frankly I'm baffled.
>>
>
>
> Because money is the *only* diplomacy.
>
> Massachusetts alone, exports 2.2 Billion with a B to Canada per year. The
> total two-way trade is close to 450 Billion "the largest bilateral
> exchange in the world", according to Canada's Trade Commission web site.
>
> A Google search on ...USA "exports to Great Britain"... gets exactly *one*
> hit. Add the separate word "statistics" and you get no hits at all.
>
> Now I am sure that the USA must sell *something* to GB, but the internet
> is sure silent about it.
>
> Is it possible that it is not very much?

Nothing worth buying

"Gig Giacona" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Icebound" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "tony roberts" > wrote in message
>> news:nospam-446053.00313715122004@shawnews...
>> ...
>>> So why the hell do the Brits get fingerprinted and photographed but
>>> Canadians don't?
>>>
>>> Is there nowhere in the US that teaches diplomacy 101?
>>> Frankly I'm baffled.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Because money is the *only* diplomacy.
>>
>> Massachusetts alone, exports 2.2 Billion with a B to Canada per year.
>> The total two-way trade is close to 450 Billion "the largest bilateral
>> exchange in the world", according to Canada's Trade Commission web site.
>>
>> A Google search on ...USA "exports to Great Britain"... gets exactly
>> *one* hit. Add the separate word "statistics" and you get no hits at
>> all.
>>
>> Now I am sure that the USA must sell *something* to GB, but the internet
>> is sure silent about it.
>>
>> Is it possible that it is not very much?
>>
>>
>>
>
> A little dated but very easy to find...
>
> http://www.usitc.gov/er/nl2000/ER0828X1.HTM
>
> August 28, 2000
> News Release 00-114
> Inv. No. 332-409
> The ITC, an independent, nonpartisan, factfinding federal agency, recently
> completed the report for the U.S. Senate Committee on Finance. Following
> are highlights of the report:
>
>
> a.. In 1998, the United Kingdom (UK) imported over $100 billion in goods
> and services from the three North American countries and exported about
> $65 billion to North America. The United States is the UK's single largest
> trading partner and accounts for about 90 percent of the UK's trade with
> North America.
>
>

I guess the US will have to fingerprint a token Canadian for every 6 Brits
to keep it fair :-)

tony roberts wrote:
> > I think our country is being taken over by a
> > bunch of paranoid freaks.
>
> No it isn't. If you pull the lion's tail, you must expect to get
bitten.
>


I see it differently.

A bunch of monkeys pulled the lion's tail. Some of them died, others
hid.
The lion decided to bite members of it's own family.

DD

"Andrew Tubbiolo" > wrote in message
...
> Hey All:
>
> So it looks like we are all going to get fingerprinted, iris
> scanned, and who know what else. Is this news to anybody? How
> much opposition is there to the new ID requrements? What do you
> folks think and feel?
>
> I'm creeped out. I think our country is being taken over by a
> bunch of paranoid freaks.
>
> http://www.eaa.org/communications/eaanews/041209_certificates.html

Yep. Pretty soon we will be a "Minority Report" society. Everywhere you go
your eyeballs will be scanned, the cops will be able to seize control of any
vehicle you are riding in, and you can get arrested for crimes you haven't
committed yet.

Andrew Tubbiolo > writes:

> I'm creeped out. I think our country is being taken over by a
> bunch of paranoid freaks.

It's worse than that.

Read Bill Moyer's acceptance speech upon receiving Harvard Medical
School's Global Environment Citizen Award
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1206-10.htm

Some excerpts:

James Watt told the U.S. Congress that protecting natural resources
was unimportant in light of the imminent return of Jesus Christ. In
public testimony he said, 'after the last tree is felled, Christ will
come back.'

A war with Islam in the Middle East is not something to be feared but
welcomed - an essential conflagration on the road to redemption.

....you will see how millions of Christian fundamentalists may believe
that environmental destruction is not only to be disregarded but
actually welcomed - even hastened - as a sign of the coming
apocalypse.

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 06:32:40 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Tubbiolo
> wrote in >::

> I think our country is being taken over by a
>bunch of paranoid freaks.

The Bush/Cheney administration might qualify:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bigjweb.com/artman/publish/article_806.shtml

Total Surveillance Equals Total Tyranny
By Tom DeWeese
Aug 21, 2003, 14:49

In the name of fighting terrorism a new kind of government is being
implemented in Washington, D.C. We are witnessing the birth of a
powerful multi-billion dollar surveillance lobby consisting of an army
of special interest groups, Washington lawyers, lobbyists, and
high-tech firms with wares to sell.

The personal rights of American citizens, protected until now by the
Bill of Rights, are the farthest thing from their minds as they seek
to fill their pockets while enabling government to monitor and control
our lives to a degree unheard of prior to September 11, 2001. This
army seeks riches as it pushes for laws and regulations to spy on and
control the lives of law-abiding Americans.

The Government Electronics and Information Technology Association
(GEIA) reports that there are more than 100 federal entities involved
in forging the largest conglomeration of government-private contractor
interests since the creation of the Pentagon. GEIA represents hundreds
of corporate members seeking to cash in on the Homeland
Security-citizen-surveillance-spending spree.

GEIA told the news media that the “needed technologies include those
providing digital surveillance, data mining, advanced encryption,
smart cards, censors and early warning and profiling tools.” In
September 2002, dozens of major high tech companies formed the
“Homeland Security Industries Association”. A key objective of the
association is to win a piece of the action for the creation of
national ID cards for travelers.

The November 25 edition of Business Week reported that the SAS
Institute is among many corporations scrambling to launch a whole new
line of anti-money laundering software designed to help insurance
companies, investment banks and brokerage firms spy on their clients’
financial activities on behalf of the government in compliance with
the Patriot Act.

According to Bert Ely, the head of a consulting company for financial
institutions, the new anti-money laundering provisions of the Patriot
Act will do nothing to stop the financing of international terrorists.
At best, he says, the new provisions will actually provide evil doers
with a road map to avoid detection.

What the new Patriot Act provisions are really about, says Ely, is to
have the United States fall into line with an international campaign
being waged by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development and the Financial Action Task Force against countries that
serve as tax havens. The newly enacted regulations are being applied
in the name of fighting terrorism, but are really about a different
agenda.

In mid-September 2002, the U.S. Department of Commerce and the Office
of Homeland Security held an exposition in Washington. Medium and
small firms from across the nation were invited in to showcase the
very latest in citizen surveillance wares. This tradeshow and others
like it have attracted hundreds of corporations who’ve shown their
high-tech products to top government planners responsible for creating
and implementing new restrictions on privacy in the name of “national
security.”

PoliticalMoneyline says that 444 groups and individuals have
registered as lobbyists to deal with “terror” and “security” issues.

IBM has opened a “Government Solutions Center” in Vienna, Virginia.
The high-tech Unisys Corporation has established a similar exhibition
for inspection by federal surveillance planners, called the “Homeland
Security Center for Excellence.” Both corporations are racing to cash
in on billions of dollars for facial recognition systems at airports,
and in anticipation of “trusted traveler” cards, a high-tech ID tied
to extensive background checks and biometric identification.

In February 2003, it was discovered that the Department of Justice was
drafting legislation to radically expand the reach of the federal
government into the lives of every American citizen. The official
title of the document is the “Domestic Security Enhancement Act of
2003. It’s been given the nickname, Patriot 2. The bill has not yet
been introduced in Congress and only a very few key government leaders
including Vice President Cheney and House Speaker Dennis Hastert have
reviewed it.

It is suspected by many that the delay in officially offering the bill
to Congress is a direct result of public attacks on the bill by
privacy advocates, but it is feared that the Justice Department would
get very bold in rushing it through should another terrorist attack
occur.

Here are just a few of the more frightening provisions of Patriot 2.
By definition in the bill, almost any American citizen can arbitrarily
be designated a terrorist. Section 101 of this act will give the
executive branch the power to declare any American a “foreign power”
and therefore not a citizen. Those designated will be exempt from the
protections of the Constitution.

Keep in mind that the Patriot Act was passed by Congress, sight
unseen, in the middle of an Anthrax scare. Every member of Congress
was warned that if they failed to pass it then the next terrorist
attack would be on their hands.

That’s why the Patriot Act allows for wiretaps without warrants. And
it’s why all the other surveillance a-go-go is in full swing. In the
name of fighting terrorism, our government has gained the ability to
see our every movement, inspect every transaction, and walk into our
homes without our knowing it.

For those of you who feel protected; who feel the government is just
doing its job to defeat terrorism, I’m very sad to tell you that our
government is not being honest with us. Terrorism is the excuse, not
the motivation, for the massive drive toward Big Brother.

We are not being protected. We are being wrapped in a cocoon of
tyranny. All of the signs are there. Consider the power which we have
now granted to the federal government twenty years down the road,
driven by more technological developments that we can’t even pretend
to foresee.

Imagine the America that you are allowing the government to create for
your children. What will their lives be like? Will they know freedom
or oppression? We are making those decisions for our children today.

The only way to make sure that government doesn’t abuse its power is
to not grant it in the first place.



--

Irrational beliefs ultimately lead to irrational acts.
-- Larry Dighera,

I never knew paranoia was as popular as acrophobia amognst pilots.

On 16 Dec 2004 10:37:25 -0800, "WildBlueYonder76" >
wrote in m>::

>I never knew paranoia was as popular as acrophobia amognst pilots.

The word 'paranoia' may not be the word you're looking for here,
unless you characterize a citizen's real loss of the right to judicial
due process as a delusion.


Main Entry:paranoia
Pronunciation:*par-*-*n*i-*
Function:noun
Etymology:New Latin, from Greek, madness, from paranous demented,
from para- + nous mind
Date:circa 1811

1 : a psychosis characterized by systematized delusions of
persecution or grandeur usually without hallucinations
2 : a tendency on the part of an individual or group toward
excessive or irrational suspiciousness and distrustfulness of
others
–paranoiac \-*n*i-*ak, -*n*i-ik\ also paranoic \-*n*i(-i)k,
-*n*-ik\ adjective or noun
–paranoically \-*n*i(-i)-k(*-)l*, -*n*-i-k(*-)l*\ adverb

WildBlueYonder76 wrote:

> I never knew paranoia was as popular as acrophobia amognst pilots.
>
I used to be exceedingly careful about pre-flight inspections, etc and
appologized for being "paranoid". The instructor remarked, "Paranoid
pilots die in their beds."

"The word 'paranoia' may not be the word you're looking for here,
unless you characterize a citizen's real loss of the right to judicial
due process as a delusion."
No, but I consider a terrorist's loss of due process an obligation.

> The instructor remarked, "Paranoid pilots die in their beds."
Almost sounds like a King School seminar. ;-)

On 16 Dec 2004 15:50:15 -0800, "WildBlueYonder76" >
wrote in . com>::

>"The word 'paranoia' may not be the word you're looking for here,
>unless you characterize a citizen's real loss of the right to judicial
>due process as a delusion."
>
>No, but I consider a terrorist's loss of due process an obligation.

Unfortunately, that's not the way the Patriot Act is written. Once
the government declares (without the necessity of proof) one of it's
citizen's is an Enemy Combatant, the citizen's rights to due process
of law disappear. There is no trial to ascertain if the citizen
actually is or not. The citizen can't call an attorney, and can be
held indefinitely (and secretly) without being charged with a crime.

Welcome to the 21st century. :-(

Larry Dighera > writes:

> Welcome to the 21st century. :-(

Welcome to Bush-League government. I will not concede that the 21st
century is going to be that way.

"Dave S" > wrote in message .net...
> I've been fingerprinted 4 or 5 times in my life, voluntarily. Application for cop school long ago, more recently my
> concealed handgun license and renewal. It's a non issue to me.
>
> I utilize a computerized pharmaceutical cabinet daily as an ICU/ER nurse, and it uses a biometric scan of my finger in
> lieu of a typed password... (and I DO have the option of not using the biometric, but it impedes my job performance).
>
> Positive identification to exercise a PRIVELEDGE (not a right) is not too "big brother" for me.
>
> Dave
>

I'm glad you like being fingerprinted. Why exactly do they do that? Are you guilty of something because you carry a
handgun?

The Wright Brothers exercised their rights to create and build a flying machine. Only later did folks loose their rights
and have the freedom of flying called a privilege.

....So we are getting to the point that we have no wrights anymore, only privileges, but the privileges never created an
airplane...

"SFM" > wrote in message ...
> -------------------------------------
> "C Kingsbury" > wrote in message
> .net...
>>
>>
>> When was the last time you were asked for your pilot's license as a form
> of
>> identification? European driver's licenses look like our pilot
> certificates
>> because they have national ID cards that are more like our passports.
>
>
> BTW did you notice that in the Intelligence bill there was also a provision
> to make the Dept. of Homeland Security responsible for ensuring that all
> drivers license conform to national requirement of ID? Basically DHS will be
> developing a national ID. Which makes me wonder why we need another
> identifier on our certificates.
>
> At least the biometric they are talking about at this point is a photo. I
> just hope they let us submit photos and not makes us show up at the FSDO for
> a picture to be taken.
>
> Scott
>
> --

It's proposed that it will be like a passport photo...

"Bob Fry" > wrote in message
...
> Larry Dighera > writes:
>
> > Welcome to the 21st century. :-(
>
> Welcome to Bush-League government. I will not concede that the 21st
> century is going to be that way.
>

Wake up and smell the coffee. It will be unpopular to NOT keep this level
of "security" in place, with any politician, for many years to come.
--
Jim in NC

"Morgans" > writes:


> > Welcome to Bush-League government. I will not concede that the 21st
> > century is going to be that way.
> >
>
> Wake up and smell the coffee. It will be unpopular to NOT keep this level
> of "security" in place, with any politician, for many years to come.

Many years need not equal 100.

I was right with you up until your last statement:

> Positive identification to exercise a PRIVELEDGE (not a right) is not
> too "big brother" for me

There is the rub. It is a philosophy difference that I doubt that will ever
have univeral alignment. Rather than looking at government as an
institution that grants priveledges to its people; I look at government as
an institution that we grant the authority to limit certain freedoms so that
we can all live together in relative peace. The people should control what
freedoms it allows the government to limit or restrict -- everything else
remains free.
[i]
> I've been fingerprinted 4 or 5 times in my life, voluntarily.
> It's a non issue to me.

Ditto. Worked in a bank and I don't remember why I was fingerprinted a
bunch of other times, something to do with the time I...oh never mind. ;)
DNA for ID is no big deal, there is more opportunity for abuse because the
data can be used for more than just ID but that is something I haven't seen
as a real issue yet.

Back to my idealist self. Giving up freedom for security bothers me,
especially when most of the so called security does very little to enahance
security.

Also, security measures should first be implemented that do not effect
individual freedoms. When these fall short, investigate other measures that
limit freedom with high scrutiny. An analogy. I am an engineer [that's not
the analogy]. When I design new equipment and processes the goal is to
design safety into the system. During the whole development process and
safety reviews, we identify potential issues. We then try to implement
engineering controls for the identified hazards. If we cannot reasonably
design out or mitigate the hazard we will consider administrative controls.
Engineering controls are often more expensive but they have high
reliability. Administrative controls are usually cheap but people are not
as reliable; they get distracted, have a false sense of security, etc.

In my weak analogy [engineering controls] = [no restriction to personal
freedom] & [administratve controls] = [restriction to personal freedom]

If we want to enhance safety, there are many many many things that should be
done that would be completely transparent to the public. Yes, they are more
expensive but (1) they will truely enhance security vs window dressing (2)
they are more reliable and (3) they will not restrict individual freedoms.
Once these have been implemented, consider some of the "administrative"
controls we have been subjected to. I have no problem with suffering
through some adimistrative controls when they are a temporary means to allow
time for engineering controls to be implemented. The cost issue doesn't
pass mustard. We seem to have PLENTY of money to thow away on useless
programs and activities.

WildBlueYonder76 wrote:

> "The word 'paranoia' may not be the word you're looking for here,
> unless you characterize a citizen's real loss of the right to judicial
> due process as a delusion."
> No, but I consider a terrorist's loss of due process an obligation.

It's easy when you know the guy's a terrorist. The real issue when judging
laws and/or policies is whether or not it protects an _innocent_ person.

And there is plenty of justification for people to be 'paranoid' when it
comes to mandated identity cards and such. They were (are?) after all, one
of the overt differences between free and repressive societies.

--
Frank....H

"WildBlueYonder76" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> "The word 'paranoia' may not be the word you're looking for here,
> unless you characterize a citizen's real loss of the right to judicial
> due process as a delusion."
> No, but I consider a terrorist's loss of due process an obligation.

What - guilty until proved innocent?

Chris wrote:
>
> What - guilty until proved innocent?

Not the way the Patriot Act is written. Just guilty. There's no trial, so
there's no opportunity to "prove" innocence. And no requirement to prove guilty.

Basically, if the government accuses you of being a terrorist, the accusation
itself is a life sentence.

George Patterson
The desire for safety stands against every great and noble enterprise.

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Chris wrote:
>>
>> What - guilty until proved innocent?
>
> Not the way the Patriot Act is written. Just guilty. There's no trial, so
> there's no opportunity to "prove" innocence. And no requirement to prove
> guilty.
>
> Basically, if the government accuses you of being a terrorist, the
> accusation
> itself is a life sentence.

It would be interesting to imagine what the founding fathers would have made
of the Patriot Act after all they got rid of one tyranny, King George and
now have got another "King" George.

On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 08:31:39 -0000, "Chris" > wrote
in >::

>
>"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Chris wrote:
>>>
>>> What - guilty until proved innocent?
>>
>> Not the way the Patriot Act is written. Just guilty. There's no trial, so
>> there's no opportunity to "prove" innocence. And no requirement to prove
>> guilty.
>>
>> Basically, if the government accuses you of being a terrorist, the
>> accusation
>> itself is a life sentence.
>
>It would be interesting to imagine what the founding fathers would have made
>of the Patriot Act after all they got rid of one tyranny, King George and
>now have got another "King" George.
>

If you found the Patriot Act repugnant, at least you could take solace
in its sunset clause which eliminates much of the law in 2005. But
"King" George has other ideas:
http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=11835&c=206

Patriot Act II contains no such sunset clause, and seeks to remove the
sunset clause from the original Patriot Act in addition to granting
sweeping additional unconstitutional government powers.

Welcome to the 21st century. :-(