Time: Tue Oct 29 17:33:02 1996 To: ralph@teaminfinity.com From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: THIS is NOT conjecture, it is well along in CONGRESS !! Cc: Bcc: You know, I saw this the other day: people whip out credit cards, and hand them to the cashier. Their hands must reach out to the cashiers. Pretty soon, it will be a simple matter just to reach out to them, with an empty hand, and a biochip implanted in place of the credit card. Just an observation about check-out stands. /s/ Paul Mitchell At 04:38 PM 10/29/96 -0500, you wrote: > http://TeamInfinity.com/urls.html > > NATIONAL ID CARDS>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Read and know > so you are aware > and can decide > when you can still > decide. > >Hello there is a nice little surprise in current Immigration legislation, >call it a TROJAN HORSE if you will. > >The TV show "Save Our Streets" this past weekend had a show which mentioned >the "NEED" for better IDs THROUGHOUT the whole show a million times. Makes >one wonder if that show is part of this effort to ID us all as well. > >Please > >MAKE SURE you read the whole thing !!! > >It is of great concern to us all. "Vair are your papers ! Sig Hial" > >-----------FWD------------------- > >Date sent: Wed, 1 May 1996 22:34:46 -0500 >From: MAWeav@aol.com >Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 >Subject: Gov't. Tracking of Americans > >Linda, > >Thanks for the article on the Christian Coalition's opposition to the >immigration "reform" bills moving through Congress. You should know, >however, that many of those individuals and organizations which >opposed the so-called Immigration Reform bills---the Senate version >of which will likely have been voted on by the time you read >this---did so because of the incredibly ominous national citizen >registry and tracking provisions in the bills. I can't speak for the >Christian Coalition, but I know that Grover Norquist's opposition was >based on these problems---not his consulting work for Microsoft >Corporation. > >These bills do more than attempt to stop the immigration >problem---they set in motion requirements that private employers seek >approval from a nationwide government database of "eligible >employees" before they can hire anyone. This means that every >American citizen would have to be registered in this massive >government database. This system would be implemented through a some >type of national ID card, verified through a biometric encoder such >as a fingerprint or retina scan. The way this will most likely work >is through the nationwide standardization of state driver's licences >and consolidation and sharing of this information with the federal >government. This is not some Bircher fantasy, this is fact. Please >read the attached white paper (now somewhat superceded by events) >from the National Center for Home Education, another conservative >group vehemently opposed to this legislation. > >Yes, illegal immigration is a problem that must be dealt with, but >the "reform" moving through the Congress isn't the answer. To mangle >Benjamin Franklin, those who will sacrifice liberty for a little >security deserve neither. > >Mark Weaver > >============================ > >February 1996 > >Congress Poised To Mandate Government Registration and Tracking of >All Americans > >Imagine an America in which every citizen is required to carry a >biometrically-encoded identification card as a precondition for >conducting business. Imagine having your retina scanned every time >you need to prove your identification. Imagine carrying a card >containing your entire medical, academic, social, and financial >history. Now, imagine that bureaucrats, police officers, and social >workers have access under certain circumstances to the information on >your card. Finally, imagine an America in which it is illegal to seek >any employment without approval from the United States government. > >This future may be more real than many Americans would like to think >if Congressional lawmakers are allowed to proceed with their most >recent attempt at monitoring the private lives of American citizens. > >Enter S. 269, the latest attempt by Congress to mandate a >computer-driven, biometrically-verifiable national identification >system. If enacted into law, S. 269 would require the most >comprehensive registration and tracking of American citizens by the >federal government in history. Some experts have speculated that >once the system envisioned by S. 269 is in place, the scope of the >identity card could be expanded to include information of a highly >personal nature, such as credit and spending history and medical, >educational, and social records. > >On February 29, 1996, the Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to >begin deliberation on S. 269, The Immigration Reform Act of 1996. >The bill has already passed the Immigration Subcommittee and is being >promoted by Senator Alan Simpson (R-WY) and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA). >In the House, Republican Congressman Lamar Smith of Texas is the key >sponsor of a similar bill, H.R.2202, The Immigration in the National >Interest Act. Although the House bill is not as extreme in its >proposals as the Senate version, it still contains provisions which >should be viewed as objectionable by family privacy advocates. H.R. >2202 is scheduled for a final floor vote on March 18. The Clinton >Administration is a strong proponent of both bills. > >Why would Congress and the Clinton Administration consider such a >plan? > >Some Americans believe that America is in the midst of an illegal >immigration crisis. Politicians want to show their constituents that >they are taking strong action against illegal immigration. These >politicians argue that the best way to control illegal immigration >is to give the government the right to approve all employee hiring in >America. By using advanced technology to register, track and store >information on every citizen, they argue, it will be easy to spot >illegal immigrants. > >If At First You Don't Succeed . . . > >Similar (but unsuccessful) proposals to create a national registry >and tracking system were advanced in the early 1980's by a powerful >array of government agencies who brushed aside any concerns about >personal privacy. Agencies like the Internal Revenue Service, the >State Department, and the Central Intelligence Agency, each for their >own unique reasons, craved a law which would require every American >to carry a national identity card. One attempt to register and track >Americans came close to being endorsed by the Reagan cabinet in July >1981, but it was stopped when President Reagan personally vetoed the >idea on the grounds that it was a massive invasion of privacy. > >In 1993, under the guise of an immunization bill, Congress attempted >to register and track every American from birth, but the measure was >defanged of its dangerous provisions after tens of thousands of >calls and letters poured into Washington D.C. from parents around the >country asking Congress to respect their family privacy and >individual liberties. Perhaps the most famous attempt to create a >national registry came in 1994 as part of the Clinton >Administration's ill-fated Health Security Act. > >Each time these proposals have been mounted, pro-family forces have >rallied to defeat them. > >Smart Cards, Retina Scans, Voice Patterns and the Coming Biometric >Privacy Invasion > >Biometrics is the science of measuring unique physiological or >behavioral characteristics. In recent years, the technology which >drives this science has evolved well beyond fingerprinting and >dental records. In fact, the technology is available to identify >people by the length of their fingers, the pattern of their retinas, >the sound of their voices, and the smell of their skin. Senate >lawmakers intend to incorporate advanced forms of this technology as >part of the most comprehensive identification and information >gathering program in history. > >On May 10, 1995, the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration met for a >hearing entitled, "Verification of Applicant Identity for the >Purposes of Employment and Public Assistance." The hearing was >chaired by Senator Alan Simpson (R-WY) and was attended by Senators >Ted Kennedy (D-MA), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), and Jon Kyl (R-AZ). >Robert Rasor, from the Financial Crimes Division of the Secret >Service, provided an explanation to the Subcommittee of the emerging >"biometric" technologies' role in personal identification: "The use >of biometrics is the means by which an individual may be conclusively >identified There are two types of biometric identifiers: physical >and behavioral characteristics. Physiological biometrics include >facial features, hand geometry, retinal and iris patterns, DNA, and >fingerprints. Behavioral characteristics include voice >characteristics and signature analysis." > >Although the language of S. 269 does not mandate which specific >biometric technique will be used to register, track and identify >every American, it clearly calls for the use of biometrics (Section >115(7)). Senator Dianne Feinstein, an original drafter of the >proposal, recently explained in a Capitol Hill magazine that it is >her intention to see Congress immediately implement a national >identity system where every American is required to carry a card with >a "magnetic strip on which the bearer's unique voice, retina pattern, >or fingerprint is digitally encoded." > >"Fifteen years ago, they would have torn the building down." > >Despite the fact that this bill could dramatically increase the role >of the federal government in the private lives of Americans, the >proposal has received relatively little media attention. Senate >sponsors seem to be pleased by the opportunity to act covertly. >During his closing remarks following the last panel of the May 10 >subcommittee meeting, Senator Simpson mused on the relative lack of >media attention given the hearings and the overlap between a national >ID card and President Clinton's proposal for a "Health Security Card" >two years ago: "There is much to do here, but I was just saying to >Ted [Kennedy] before he left, a hearing like this fifteen years ago, >they would have torn the building down. And here we are today just a >bunch of us, kind of sitting around and no media, no nothing. This is >fine with me. I get tired of them on this issue." > >Key Problems With The Bill > >Congressional attempts to include privacy safeguards in the language >offer little hope or consolation. Agencies like the IRS and the >Social Security Administration (SSA) have recently been subject to >criticism for their lack of control over employees who, in violation >of the privacy safeguards, were opening confidential files and making >the information available to outsiders. Among other things, the bill >establishes: > >* That the federal government create a national database >containing information on all Americans and immigrants eligible to >work in this country (S. 269, Sec. 111). > >* That all Americans may be required to obtain a national >identification device, like an ID card (S. 269, Sec. 111(b)). > >* Beginning in 1999, all employers must receive authorization from >the national computer database before hiring any new employee this >does not just apply to immigrants. For each new employee, the company >would be required to transmit his name and identification number via >modem and then wait for the national database to respond with an >authorization code. If the person's name is not in the database, he >can not work (S. 269, Sec. 111). > >* All American children must register with the SSA by age sixteen. >When they register, they must provide the agency with a "fingerprint >or other biometric data." The agency would place the fingerprint "or >other biometric data" on the child's birth certificate, hoping to >make the birth certificate more fraud-resistant (S. 269, Sec. >116(7)). > >* In violation of the Tenth Amendment, the Senate bill would >create federalize rules pertaining to the creation of driver's >licenses, and would unconstitutionally mandate that 1) social >security numbers be attached to the license; and that 2) all drivers >licenses "shall contain a fingerprint or other biometric data." (S. >269, Sec. 116(b)). > >A National Database Would Be a Nightmare! > >Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-TX) called the national computer >registry and move toward a national identity card, "an abomination >and wholly at odds with the American tradition of individual >freedom." Senator Spencer Abraham (R-MI) recently joined Armey in >signing a letter denouncing the tracking system. Jack Kemp wrote in >the New York Times, "An anti-privacy, anti-business and anti-American >approach is no way to run immigration policy." > >These bills would create an unprecedented increase in the >government's ability to collect information. For the first time: > >* The government would have a comprehensive registry of every >American name, date of birth, place of birth, mother's maiden name, >Social Security number, gender, race, and other information. >Personal information that is now scattered in many different places >would be consolidated in one database, controlled by a single federal >agency. > >* Personal information would be accessible to local agencies and >anyone who claims to be an employer. > >* The government would have to grant approval before a company >enters into private employment contract with a private citizen. > >The Legislation Is Likely To Pass Unless Significant Opposition >Develops Soon > >Under the current political climate, the bill is likely to be enacted >into law. Most Senators do not even realize that the bill would >create a national, computer-linked registry and tracking system >driven by biometric technology. Those who do understand have not >properly evaluated the tremendous threat to individual liberties and >family privacy posed by the measure. > >The House Version > >In its current form, H.R. 2202 calls for pilot programs to test the >idea of an computer-linked verification system. It calls for new and >unprecedented databases and data sharing and computer link-ups >between state and federal agencies, thus expanding the government's >ability to monitor private citizens. Like S. 269, it would, for the >first time, require private employers to receive approval from a >federal computer database before entering into private employment >contracts with individuals. > >Opposition To The Bills > >More than fifty influential organizations representing groups on both >the right and left of the political spectrum have joined together in >an effort to defeat these bills. A number of Representatives and >Senators have responded favorably to their concerns. Two of them, >Senators Spence Abraham (R-MI) and Rus Feingold (D-WI) have joined >together to offer amendments to delete all references to registries, >ID cards, or employment verification programs from the Senate bill. > >Action Is Urgently Needed > >The registry and tracking system currently before Congress must be >defeated. Now is the time to write and call urging your lawmakers on >Capitol Hill to oppose any national registry, tracking and >identification system. Tell them that the threat to individual >liberty and family privacy far outweigh any potential benefits that >such a system might provide in curbing illegal immigration. If your >senator is a member of the Judiciary Committee urge him to support >the Abraham/Feingold Amendment. Tell them that there are acceptable >solutions to America's illegal immigration problem but giving the >government the power to register and track its citizens is not one >of them. [Note: S. 269 may be officially redubbed S.1394.] > > Call your Senator at (202) 225-3121 and your Representative at > (202) 224-3121. > >This special report was prepared by the legal staff of the National >Center for Home Education, P.O. Box 125, Paeonian Springs, VA 22129. >Permission is granted to reprint this report in its entirety. > >==========end=================== > > http://TeamInfinity.com/urls.html > >
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail