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