Coming soon?

[shadowsource]

National ID cards in the US, UK, and who knows where else .... Reports below from Mercury News, Drudge:

Oracle wants to donate the software:
http://www.siliconvalley.com/docs/news/svfront/ellsn092301.htm


Posted at 11:14 p.m. PDT Saturday, Sept. 22, 2001
Oracle boss urges national ID cards, offers free software
Idea driven by security concerns

BY PAUL ROGERS AND ELISE ACKERMAN
Mercury News

Broaching a controversial subject that has gained visibility since the Sept.
11 terrorist attacks, Oracle Chairman and CEO Larry Ellison is calling for
the United States to create a national identification card system -- and
offering to donate the software to make it possible.

Under Ellison's proposal, millions of Americans would be fingerprinted and
the information would be placed on a database used by airport security
officials to verify identities of travelers at airplane gates.

``We need a national ID card with our photograph and thumbprint digitized and
embedded in the ID card,'' Ellison said in an interview Friday night on the
evening news of KPIX-TV in San Francisco.

``We need a database behind that, so when you're walking into an airport and
you say that you are Larry Ellison, you take that card and put it in a reader
and you put your thumb down and that system confirms that this is Larry
Ellison,'' he said.

`Absolutely free'

Ellison's company, Oracle, based in Redwood Shores, is the world's leading
maker of database software. Ellison, worth $15 billion, is among the world's
richest people
.
``We're quite willing to provide the software for this absolutely free,'' he
said.

Calls for national ID cards traditionally have been met with fierce
resistance from civil liberties groups, who say the cards would intrude on
the privacy of Americans and allow the government to track people's movements.
But Ellison said in the electronic age, little privacy is left anyway.

``Well, this privacy you're concerned about is largely an illusion,'' he
said. ``All you have to give up is your illusions, not any of your privacy.
Right now, you can go onto the Internet and get a credit report about your
neighbor and find out where your neighbor works, how much they earn and if
they had a late mortgage payment and tons of other information.''

Attempts by the Mercury News to reach Ellison for further comment Saturday
were unsuccessful. Many questions about the proposal remain unanswered, such
as whether foreign nationals would be required to have a card to enter the
country. The hijackers in the Sept. 11 attacks are not believed to have been
U.S. citizens.
In the TV interview with anchorman Hank Plante, Ellison said shoppers have to
disclose more information at malls to buy a watch than they do to get on an
airplane.

``Let me ask you. There are two different airlines. Airline A says before you
board that airplane you prove you are who you say you are. Airline B, no
problem. Anyone who wants the price of a ticket, they can go on that airline.
Which airplane do you get on?''

Oracle has a longstanding relationship with the federal government. Indeed,
the CIA was Ellison's first customer, and the company's name stems from a
CIA-funded project launched in the mid-1970s that sought better ways of
storing and retrieving digital data.

Civil libertarians said caution is needed.

``It strikes me as a form of overreaction to the events that we have
experienced,'' said Robert Post, a constitutional law professor at the
University of California-Berkeley. ``If we allow a terrorist attack to
destroy forms of freedom that we have enjoyed, we will have given the victory
to them. This kind of recommendation does just that.''

Post said while such a system may catch some criminals, it could be hacked or
faked or evaded by capable terrorists. Nor is it clear that such a system
would have foiled the Sept. 11 attacks, he said.

Strong support

But polls last week show many Americans support a national ID card.

In a survey released Wednesday by the Pew Research Center for the People &
the Press, seven of 10 Americans favored a requirement that citizens carry a
national identity card at all times to show to a police officer upon request.
The proposal had particularly strong support from women. There was less
support for government monitoring of telephone calls, e-mails and credit card
purchases.

The FBI already has an electronic fingerprint system for criminals.

In July 1999, the FBI's Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification
System became operational. That system keeps an electronic database of 41
million fingerprints, with prints from all 10 fingers of people who have been
convicted of crimes.
Faster response

The system has reduced the FBI's criminal fingerprint processing time from 45
days to less than two hours.
Paul Bresson, an FBI spokesman in Washington, said Saturday that he is
unaware of the details of Ellison's proposal and declined comment.

Howard Gantman, a spokesman for Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said that
she would be interested in discussing the idea with Ellison.

``She does feel that we do need to make some important advances in terms of
increasing our security,'' Gantman said. ``A lot of people have brought up
ideas about how to create more security and she's interested in exploring
them. She'd like to find out more.''

One group certain to fight the proposal is the American Civil Liberties Union.

A statement about ID cards posted on the ACLU's national Web site says: ``A
national ID card would essentially serve as an internal passport. It would
create an easy new tool for government surveillance and could be used to
target critics of the government, as has happened periodically throughout our
nation's history.''

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mercury News researcher Leigh Poitinger contributed to this report.
Contact Paul Rogers at progers@sjmercury.com or (408) 920-5045. Contact Elise
Ackerman at eackerman@sjmercury.com or (408) 271-3774.


XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX SUNDAY SEPT 23 2001 20:02:37 ET XXXXX

BUSH CONTEMPLATES NATIONAL ID CARD FOR ALL CITIZENS

**Exclusive**

A highly controversial option has emerged for use in fighting terrorism in
the United States: A national ID card which would be issued to every citizen.
A proposal for the creation of a national ID card was presented to President
Bush in recent days, top government sources tell the DRUDGE REPORT.

The ID card plan was included in a classified briefing outlining steps the
nation can take to limit exposure to terror attacks. Bush briefly discussed
the ID card option with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, according to
insiders.

"I can tell you this, the president is very reluctant [to issue a national ID
card]," a top White House source said on Sunday. "But we must look at all
options."

Just as House Democratic Leader Richard Gephardt [D-MO] says Congress should
quickly move to open debate on security measures such as a national ID card.
"We are in a new world," Gephardt said. "This event will change the balance
between freedom and security."

SAFETY FROM A CHIP

ORACLE Chairman and CEO Larry Ellison this weekend called for the United
States to create a national identification system -- and offering to donate
the software to make it possible -- free-of-charge.

"We need a national ID card with our photograph and thumbprint digitized and
embedded in the ID card," Ellison said in an interview Friday night on the
evening news of KPIX-TV in San Francisco.

Blair has tentatively approved identity cards which will be introduced for
the first time in Britain. The universal identity card leads major papers in
London on Monday:

'ID CARDS FOR ALL' fronts the TIMES.

'IDENTITY CARDS ON THE WAY IN FIGHT ON TERROR' headlines the MAIL.

'WE'RE ALL GOING TO HAVE ID CARDS' splashes the SUN.

Blair has opted for a voluntary scheme in issuing the card, rejecting a
compulsory "on demand" card because of connotations with Nazi Germany, where
lack of proper identity cards could result in instant arrest, according to
reports.

However, it will be virtually impossible for anyone to live a normal life
without the new ID card in England - possession of a valid card will be
necessary for boarding an aircraft, buying gas, opening a bank account,
starting a job or claiming government benefits.

UK. Home Secretary David Blunkett on Sunday questioned the idea of a
"voluntary card". "It would not be a great deal of help" in the fight against
terrorism, Blunkett said on BBC1's On the Record. Blunkett stressed the need
to balance the fight against terrorism with the freedoms of a liberal
society.

But he said that his "instincts" were that beating terror must take priority
and that politicians' ability to act must not be hamstrung by an excessively
legalistic approach to human rights. New laws are expected to be rushed
through the U.K.'s Parliament in coming weeks to allow for the legality of a
mandatory ID card.

In a nationwide poll released Sunday, a stunning 85% of Brits would welcome a
national ID card system in the wake of the terrorist attacks on the United
States, with an overwhelming majority calling for the cards to be packed with
information to clearly identify the holder: These include photograph (97%),
date of birth (96%) eye color (92%), a finger print (85%), DNA details (75%),
criminal records (74%) and religion (67%).

Stateside, U.S. Rep. George Gekas [R-PA], chairman of the House immigration
subcommittee, told reporters last week that Congress could no longer reject
out of hand a national ID card system for citizens.

In a survey released Wednesday by the Pew Research Center for the People &
the Press, seven of 10 Americans favored a requirement that citizens carry a
national identity card at all times. The proposal had particularly strong
support from women.

ORACLE's Ellison said in the electronic age, little privacy is left anyway.

"Well, this privacy you're concerned about is largely an illusion,'' he told
PIX's anchorman Hank Plante. "All you have to give up is your illusions, not
any of your privacy. Right now, you can go onto the Internet and get a credit
report about your neighbor and find out where your neighbor works, how much
they earn and if they had a late mortgage payment and tons of other
information."

 

[sigh]

they'll scan my brain and put it on a chip over my dead...er...

well okay, i'm too chicken to actually die over this one, but damn these people...is this real?

i made an off the cuff goose step comment a few days back...and got ripped a new one for it too...well now it ain't so funny any more...i don't know about the rest of you, but i'm stocking up on toilet paper

how reliable is this source?

 

[Calamity Jane]

too scary to contemplate... this strikes me as an issue much like gun control... it only applies to law abiding citizens. i AM who i say i AM, but i have to produce 35 forms of ID and a stool sample to prove it. but any hacker and forger worth his salt can become whoever he/she chooses. who loses here? we do.

i can't say it enough. DON'T GIVE UP YOUR CIVIL RIGHTS IN THE NAME OF SAFETY!!! It gets too easy to give up the next one and the next one.

 

[MissTaken]

~nods~

...and once you have given up your civil rights, it will be a cold day in hell before you can regain them!

 

[Natalie Nessus]

.

 

[shadowsource]

It's real -

It's an old debate, now driven in part by the technological possibilities. The Boston Globe has a big article on it today (like Mercury News, they are near a hotbed of silicone technology), but the site is down now, so I can't post it. And if you read the excerpts from the big British papers, you'll see that 67% of UK respondents said one's RELIGION should be listed on the card, along with criminal histories, etc.

 

[Calamity Jane]

Re: It's real -

And if you read the excerpts from the big British papers, you'll see that 67% of UK respondents said one's RELIGION should be listed on the card, along with criminal histories, etc.

Great... where do i get in line to be burned at the stake?

Hasn't anyone seen Gattica? Heard the 'freako conspiracy theorists' talk about a DNA databank? I'm not a techno phobe, but if we think about all the technological advances that have 'helped' mankind... what happens when some greedy son of a bitch wants to foster the super race? or further legislate morality on his terms?

 

[Pokerman]

Re: It's real -

67% of UK respondents said one's RELIGION should be listed on the card, along with criminal histories, etc.

Really, thats not a bad thing. I mean, if you're mortally wounded, and Catholic, wouldn't you want them to know that, so they can get you a priest to administer last rites? Or if you're Jewish to NOT get you a Priest?

 

[Calamity Jane]

Re: Re: It's real -

Really, thats not a bad thing. I mean, if you're mortally wounded, and Catholic, wouldn't you want them to know that, so they can get you a priest to administer last rites? Or if you're Jewish to NOT get you a Priest?

Look at it this way... how many times will you be mortally wounded in your life? very few, right?

You're alot more likely to be pulled over for speeding, id'd to get on a plane, required to give this info to potential employers... and as long as you follow a mainstream religion, it would probably all be well... but let's say you're a Witch... and you live in a redneck town in Missouri with 400 people and 6 Baptist churches... do you want everyone knowing you're a Witch?

 

[Oliver Clozoff]

Am I the only one that doesn't get it?

How exactly would a national ID requirement violate our civil rights? Do the forms of identification we have now violate our civil rights? And how are you getting from a fingerprint database to diabolical eugenics? LOL

 

[Pokerman]

Look at it this way... how many times will you be mortally wounded in your life? very few, right?

HOPEFULLY! lol

... but let's say you're a Witch... and you live in a redneck town in Missouri with 400 people and 6 Baptist churches... do you want everyone knowing you're a Witch? [/B]

LOL probably as much as someone would want them to know they were Muslim or Jewish.....400 people and *6* Baptist churches? Sheeesh, around here a 400 person house of worship is SMALL, let alone needing 6 of the same religion for 400 people....

 

[Calamity Jane]

HOPEFULLY! lol



LOL probably as much as someone would want them to know they were Muslim or Jewish.....400 people and *6* Baptist churches? Sheeesh, around here a 400 person house of worship is SMALL, let alone needing 6 of the same religion for 400 people....

you don't know missouri... you can't get enough churches around here.

and as for how a national ID card of the scope they're talking about violates our civil rights... just how much information are you comfortable with people knowing? My DL has a magnetic scanner thingie on the back that has all my vitals, whether i'm an organ donor, my driving history, any history of DUI, etc... how much more do they need to know? it's none of their damn business what my medical history, my religion, or anything else is like. To me, it's unlawful search and seizure.

 

[Pokerman]

maybe they could make some things optional.....like religion, and stuff like that, that the gov't doesnt already collect. Like I said, some people might like it to be known what religion they are, while others may have good reason to keep that private....and should be allowed to.

 

[Oliver Clozoff]

just how much information are you comfortable with people knowing? My DL has a magnetic scanner thingie on the back that has all my vitals, whether i'm an organ donor, my driving history, any history of DUI, etc... how much more do they need to know? it's none of their damn business what my medical history, my religion, or anything else is like. To me, it's unlawful search and seizure.

As one of the authorities in shadowsource's article points out, such an ID card requirement wouldn't erode our privacy any more than it currently is. I agree that what we have now is more of an illusion of privacy than actual privacy. If sensitive information about us is going to be widely available anyway, why not have the government put it to good use and require people to prove who they say they are in situations where they could potentially kill a plane full of people?

 

[shadowsource]

Wrong, Oliver -

WE have lost a lot of security regarding our privacy, but there are still numerous codes that prevent the police, etc. from LAWFULLY using information they have obtained by extraordinary means. This is one of the greatest issues underlying the debate we're having. Of course people can tap your phone, scan your windows for vocal vibrations, etc., but the police can't use this info unless they have obtained a judge's permission to do so.

The Silicon Valley guy behind this push, with the offer of free software, is an iconoclast. I don't know whether he would gain anything financially from his plan. I am offended that people who develop software are ever telling us to shut up and stop complaining about how their software invades our privacy. That's a bit like Jeffrey Dahmer telling his victims that they should have been more careful about trusting him. Just because companies are selling weird spyware to psychotic citizens who want to spy on their children, wives, lovers, neighbors, etc., doesn't mean that we should ACCEPT the legality of such spying. If I ever catch a neighbor spying on me, I shall make full use of such laws as still exist to punish them for doing so. That is my RIGHT!

One of the reasons Valery Giscard d'Estaing was defeated in 1981 in the French Presidential elections was that he was pushing creation of a mandatory "smart" ID card that would bear much information whose identity would not be apparent to the French citizens who would have to carry it.

Take the fuss about medical files: People are already fearful of getting tested for genetic predisposition to disease because they know prospective employers will use the information to screen out potentially expensive workers. If your medical history is on this card, what's to stop a potential employer from demanding access to this ID card, just as they demand your Social Security number, which they have no right to know, under the law?

They will certainly want to know our criminal and medical histories, and most of us will give it to them.

 

[Calamity Jane]

If sensitive information about us is going to be widely available anyway, why not have the government put it to good use and require people to prove who they say they are in situations where they could potentially kill a plane full of people?

Because dammit... if i want to get on a plane with an assumed name so no one can find me, i have that right.

and if we have to include our religion, how hard is it for the gov to say, sorry, you're of islamic faith... you can't fly in the US

 

[Pokerman]

Re: Wrong, Oliver -

If your medical history is on this card, what's to stop a potential employer from demanding access to this ID card, just as they demand your Social Security number, which they have no right to know, under the law?

Why don't employers have the right to know your SSN? Considering they withholdw taxes, INCLUDING Social Security? Don't they need to know WHOSE Social Security taxes they're withholding?

 

[shadowsource]

Yes, Pokerman -

That's quite true, sorry. But you know very well how many other forces in our lives demand and use those SS numbers. They are our effective, informal national ID cards. Someone looking for a job will certainly be asked to fork their ID card over, and that shoplifting charge or pot possession charge they pleaded to many years ago will bite them, big time. And the medical. I'd be interested in your response.

 

[Pokerman]

Well, for the record, I never said I was in favor, or against such card. My original arguement was that I understood why people would want their religious information on such a document. (Then amended it to that it should be optional, for the 33% of people who would NOT want such info on their card).

HOWEVER.....if such cards came into existence, why could the information not be restricted on a need to know basis? I work for a large company with a huge data base. And my ID can only see certain information that pertains to my job. So while on such a card you might have information such as my religion, prior criminal convictions or an allergy to certain medications, such info would not be available to anyone who scans the card.

If you're in a state that can legally ask if you've had any prior felony convictions, then they can see that when you apply for a job. However, if someone is in a horrible automobile accident and rushed to the hospital, the doctor would not see his or her prior pot conviction when scanning the card, but an allergy to penecillin would pop up. If you're arrested, the cop would not needed to know about your medical history, but it would be helpful to know your prior convictions.

AGAIN, I'm not in favor of such a card, but if they were forced upon us, the technology certainly exists to restrict information that any given person can see.

 

[SoftPeaches]

I could see having a national ID card in the US, as long as some of the information was optional. Like someone said, if you don't want anyone to know you are a Wiccan, you have that right. But to further that thought, I can see medical history issues put on a card voluntarily.....for example, if you were diabetic, or allergic to pennicilin, or anything like that, you might want that on your ID card, but if you had a STD, that might not be something so desirable for people to just know.

 

[Unclebill]

Re: Am I the only one that doesn't get it?

Originally posted by Oliver Clozoff
How exactly would a national ID requirement violate our civil rights? Do the forms of identification we have now violate our civil rights? And how are you getting from a fingerprint database to diabolical eugenics? LOL

It's an invasion of privacy.

If there is an ID card issued and this database to be constructed, it should be to NON-citizens living in this country.

Non-criminal US citizens should be left alone.

One of the sentiments and concerns expressed by the men who established this government was the potential for government to become too intrusive into the private lives of its citizens.

This was a primary reason they rejected an income tax as a legitimate revenue source of government. The understood the potential for overbearing intrusiveness with government having this degree of access to the private financial matters of free people and saw it as a potential to undermine that freedom. And the documented abuses demonstrated by the IRS has borne out their concerns most explicitly.

Originally posted by shadowsource
That's quite true, sorry. But you know very well how many other forces in our lives demand and use those SS numbers. They are our effective, informal national ID cards. Someone looking for a job will certainly be asked to fork their ID card over, and that shoplifting charge or pot possession charge they pleaded to many years ago will bite them, big time. And the medical. I'd be interested in your response.

And without any correlating data, it has become a marvelous tool which helps those who engage in theft identity. And these criminals have wrought considerable economic havoc on many innocent Americans. Another benefit of government meddling where it has no legitimate authority.

But the reality is that there is little purpose to the SSN since the taxes collected under that set of collectivist laws goes into the general revenue fund, not into an account to which the payer has any legitimate claim anyway. You're just throwing money into the government coffers under a separate section of the tax codes.

 

[shadowsource]

Thank you, Uncle Bill -

As you know, you & I normally disagree about many things, but I have always thought that the people who call themselves libertarians on this site would in fact oppose such statist security proposals. You're the only Lit Libertarian who has actually said so. Hats off....

 

[Barb Dwyer]

WE have lost a lot of security regarding our privacy, but there are still numerous codes that prevent the police, etc. from LAWFULLY using information they have obtained by extraordinary means. This is one of the greatest issues underlying the debate we're having.

shadowsource- what about 'legal' spying?

One of my biggest pet peeves is this sudden rush to post everything to the internet. I am talking about certain information that various agencies have computerized. Specifically, in my community (and I daresay around the country too) the county auditor has placed our real estate information on a website.

This means that anyone can look up by name or address and read all sorts of information. They can see the square footage of my house; how many rooms I have; the year it was built; how much property tax I paid and whether or not it was on time; they can see what improvements I have made and who holds the mortgage. But most disturbing to me is the fact that they have pictures of my house on one of the pages! In addition, they show the FLOOR PLANS! The blueprints and the finished product which details where the bedrooms are, for example.

So, now any unsavory character not only has my name and address, they also have a picture of my home and yard, floor plans and entrance routes to my property. Why not just give them an engraved invitation to come rob me? As a matter of fact, they also have a link to Mapquest to show exactly where in town the property is located!

When I called to complain, I was told that all of this was public information and always has been. But my argument was that while that may very well be true, in the past, if anyone wanted that information they had to go downtown to the courthouse. They had to (usually) make an appointment, fill out a form and cite reasons to another human being as to the purpose of their request.

It is quite a different story from some (possible) lunatic career criminal sitting in his underwear in his living room looking up the information in the privacy of his own home- answering to no one.

I knew about it immediately- when they launched their website. But it really troubled me when a co-worker mentioned at lunch one day "I know how much you pay in taxes on your house!"

So, there is not even the illusion of privacy as Oliver mentioned.

We are slowly but surely losing all sense of privacy (and security). And for what? an open society? Whose business is it how many bathrooms I have and where they are located?

Take the fuss about medical files: People are already fearful of getting tested for genetic predisposition to disease because they know prospective employers will use the information to screen out potentially expensive workers. If your medical history is on this card, what's to stop a potential employer from demanding access to this ID card, just as they demand your Social Security number, which they have no right to know, under the law?

As to your contention that businesses will deny offers of employment to people based on medical or financial information. That is already happening as well. In addition, people are fearful (and rightly so) that insurers will deny coverage based on possible future illnesses based on genetic predisposition.

The Fair Credit Reporting Act provides some protection as to who can access financial and medical information but that will go out the window if some of these smart cards are produced. I cannot see any way to have levels of security when reading a magnetic strip or barcode. You either see all of the information or you don't. I do not like the idea of so many people having the ability to not only see this information about us- but the problems associated with what they might do with that information!

Of course people can tap your phone, scan your windows for vocal vibrations, etc., but the police can't use this info unless they have obtained a judge's permission to do so.

There was a similar case recently before the Supreme Court where the police and government agencies (ATF) wanted permission to surveil with heat seeking/infra red cameras to see if a suspect was growing marijuana. They were hoping to use that technology to gauge how much heat was generated by the lighting required in such operations. If memory serves me correctly, the court denied the request as they wanted permission to use this technology without benefit of a warrant. The guy - who actually WAS growing the weed, was found guilty at first but he won the appeal in the S.C. Unlawful search and seizure, I believe. Or lack of due process. Don't quote me.

My point is that we are being too quiet and ineffectual when it comes to losing our privacy, our freedoms and our way of life.

 

[shadowsource]

All true -

what about 'legal' spying?
One of my biggest pet peeves is this sudden rush to post everything to the internet. I am talking about certain information that various agencies have computerized. Specifically, in my community (and I daresay around the country too) the county auditor has placed our real estate information on a website.

It's much worse than that. How many people reading this know that ALL court papers filed since everything went electronic will soon be available via the internet? That includes those very nasty divorce papers with all of the wild allegations, names of alleged lovers, stories of drug use, etc. As Barb says, this stuff has always been available at the local courthouse, for a fee. But it will now be available to anyone, for a fee. I see no way that anything but SS numbers will be redacted, so be advised. This issue is going to cause a lot of trouble!

There was a similar case recently before the Supreme Court where the police and government agencies (ATF) wanted permission to surveil with heat seeking/infra red cameras to see if a suspect was growing marijuana. They were hoping to use that technology to gauge how much heat was generated by the lighting required in such operations. If memory serves me correctly, the court denied the request as they wanted permission to use this technology without benefit of a warrant. The guy - who actually WAS growing the weed, was found guilty at first but he won the appeal in the S.C. Unlawful search and seizure, I believe. Or lack of due process. Don't quote me.
Sorry, you're quoted! This one was tricky & scary, too. What Scalia wrote in his surprising ruling against the police was that the cops have no right to use intrusive gear unless such gear is commonly used by citizens. While his thinking saved us from electronic heat-sensors for the moment, it's very problematic in the long term. When lots of your neighbors have equipment to hear what you're saying to your lover in a darkened bedroom, the police will be able to use that equipment, too. Anything....

My point is that we are being too quiet and ineffectual when it comes to losing our privacy, our freedoms and our way of life.
No argument here, Barb. None.

 

[Barb Dwyer]

Re: All true -

As Barb says, this stuff has always been available at the local courthouse, for a fee. But it will now be available to anyone, for a fee. I see no way that anything but SS numbers will be redacted, so be advised. This issue is going to cause a lot of trouble!

I don't know about all the court documents - you may very well be correct about that - but the real estate and motor vehicle records are currently open to anyone- NO FEE! Nor is there any accountability as to why you feel the need to view this information.

As to the SS numbers being made available - that has been happening for decades! When I was in college (back in the Dark Ages) the university used to post class schedules at the start of each semester on the walls outside the registration area. It identified us by name AND Social Security number!

And my biggest pet peeve - and a reason why I will never shop Radio Shack ever again - is their invasion of my privacy. I resent the fact that if I go in to buy a $2.95 micro cassette for my answering machine, that they think they have the right to demand my name, address, zip code, etc. I always tell them it is none of their business. The clerk always assumes that pouty sneer and exclaims that "everyone else tells us!" If I pay cash, they have no need for this information. If I pay by check, then I can see the necessity to obtain certain info. Still, I find this practice so offensive that I refuse to patronize their stores.

What Scalia wrote in his surprising ruling against the police was that the cops have no right to use intrusive gear unless such gear is commonly used by citizens. While his thinking saved us from electronic heat-sensors for the moment, it's very problematic in the long term. When lots of your neighbors have equipment to hear what you're saying to your lover in a darkened bedroom, the police will be able to use that equipment, too. Anything....

OK- that means we will have choices to make. We can either just use body language to communicate with our lovers or we can go for it and entertain the whole neighborhood. Being a ham and an exhibitionist, I would probably enjoy putting on a show for all to hear! And if they used the heat sensors- their eyes would probably burn!

But I do have one question for you, ss... Why do you assume the bedroom is darkened?