From: Anton Sherwood <antons@jps.net>
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 21:12:04 -0700 (PDT)
To: sflp-announce@tanith.skylee.com
Subject: your papers please
Message-ID: <35AD7D5B.31E5@jps.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: message/rfc822


To: silent-tristero@world.std.com
Subject: DOT ID card info
From: t byfield <tbyfield@panix.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 18:53:22 -0400
Reply-To: t byfield <tbyfield@panix.com>
Sender: silent-tristero-approval@world.std.com


From: "ScanThisNews" <mcdonalds@airnet.net>
To: "Scan This News Recipients List" <scan@efga.org>
Subject: [FP] DoT National ID Objection Letters - Format and Subjects
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 1998 11:07:37 -0500
Reply-To: owner-scan@efga.org
X-Web-Site: http://www.efga.org/
X-Mail-List-Info: http://efga.org/about/maillist/
X-SCAN: http://www.networkusa.org/fingerprint.shtml

======================================================================
SCAN THIS NEWS
7/9/98

Included below is the address and letter format information for objecting
to the DoT proposed standard driver's license regulation. If implemented
as presently written, the Department of Transportation (DoT) regulation
will result in a National Identification Document (NID) system in the
United States. Once in place, no one will be allowed to travel, open bank
accounts, obtain health care, get a job or purchase firearms without first
presenting the proper government documents.

Under the Administrative Procedures Act, the public is allowed to
submit written objections during the 30 day comment period. Comments
must be submitted in writing. The notice of proposed rule making did
not recognize other forms of comments such as phone calls or email
submissions.

After the comment period deadline, the agency must consider all comments
and must provide a statement supporting their decision to override public
objections.

DEADLINE: Comments must be received by August 3, 1998.

PAGE LIMIT: The page limit is 15 pages, however additional pages of relevant
supporting material may be included.

NOTE: The agency requests but does not require that two copies be sent to
the Docket Management address provided below.

NOTICE: The NHTSA also mailed copies of the proposed rule to all Highway
Safety officials and to the motor vehicle administrators of each State.
They too will be submitting comments.

PUBLIC VIEWING: Copies of all documents will be placed in Docket No.
NHTSA-98-3945; in Docket Management, Room PL-401, Nassif Building, 400
Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590. (Docket hours are Monday-Friday,
10 a.m. to 5 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.)

Also provided at the bottom of this page are some suggestions for
arguments which may be used in objecting to the proposed rule. These
arguments will hopefully stimulate further thought.

Objections do not have to raise legal issues, but they should be concisely
written and clearly state the nature of each objection.

This information will also be posted on the NetworkUSA "Fingerprint"
web page: <www.networkusa.org>


             [LETTER FORMAT]

---------------[CUT HERE]------------------

[YOUR NAME]
[YOUR ADDRESS

[DATE, 1998]

Docket Management, Room PL-401
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Nassif Building
400 Seventh Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20590

Re:   Docket No. NHTSA-98-3945
      DOCID:fr17jn98-28
      23 CFR Part 1331: Proposed Rule - State-Issued Driver's Licenses
                        and Comparable Identification Documents

Dear Sirs,

In the Federal Register of June 17, 1998 (Volume 63, Number 116, pages 33219
through 33225), your agency proposed certain regulations pursuant to the
Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997, P.L. 104-208, 110 Stat.
3009, and specifically $656 thereof, 110 Stat. 3009-716, which will be
codified in 23 C.F.R. Part 1331; further, comments from the public were
invited regarding these proposed regulations. My objections to the proposed
rule, and suggestions for modification, are as follows:


                            [BODY OF LETTER]
                            [BODY OF LETTER]
                            [BODY OF LETTER]
                            [BODY OF LETTER]


I wish to be informed of any proposed amendments to these rules or their
adoption.


Sincerely,

[YOUR SIGNATURE]
[YOUR NAME]


---------------[CUT HERE]------------------

Additional information about the regulation can be found at:
http://www.networkusa.org/fingerprint/page1b/fp-dot-id-scan-notice.html

-------------------------------------------

Some examples of reasons for objecting to the proposed rule:

[version date 7/7/98]
[Please send any corrections to <fingerprint@networkusa.org>]

UNCONTESTED FACTS:

An unconstitutional law is void from the date of its enactment.

An unconstitutional law cannot serve as the basis for an agency
regulation, and an agency may not knowingly adopt an unconstitutional
rule or regulation.


CONSTITUTIONAL OBJECTIONS:

   o First Amendment Religious Objections:

     OBJECTION:
     Certain religious faiths hold that followers are not to be
     numbered. This rule will abridge the right of practitioners
     of these traditional religions in the free exercise thereof.

     ARGUMENT:
     The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits Congress from
     making any law which prohibits, impedes, or interferes with the free
     exercise of religion.

     The proposed rule will result in all states mandatorily requiring
     submission of Social Security numbers as a condition to being
     issued driver's licenses. Anyone who is opposed to using SSNs for
     identification purposes due to religious beliefs, will be denied a
     driver's license. The result will be that practitioners of any faith
     which includes a teaching against being numbered will be denied the
     right to drive if they exercise their religious belief.

     PREMISE FOR OBJECTION:
     The Holy Bible establishes by example the principle that Christians
     are not to be numbered. King David wanted to "know the number of the
     People" under his authority (2 Samuel 24:2). And, Satan caused David
     to number all Israel (1 Chronicles 21:1). God's Word further states
     that David's command to number Israel "was evil in the sight of God"
     (1 Chronicles 21:7). Because of the People's acquiescence to the
     king's enumeration plan, God sent a plague UPON THE PEOPLE
     (1 Chronicles 21:14).

     The Bible warns of a government system which will require everyone to
     be numbered -- contrary to God's will. Regarding this system the Bible
     states:

        "And he causeth all, the small and the great, and the rich and the
        poor, and the free and the bond, that there be given them a mark on
        their right hand, or upon their forehead;
        "and that no man should be able to buy or to sell, save he that hath
        the mark, (even) the name of the beast or the number of his name."
        (Rev. 13:16-17)

     But believers are warned not to participate in this numbering
     system:

        "And another angel, a third, followed them, saying with a great
        voice, If any man worshippeth the beast and his image, and
        receiveth a mark on his forehead, or upon his hand,
        "he also shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is
        prepared unmixed in the cup of his anger; and he shall be
        tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy
        angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:
        "and the smoke of their torment goeth up for ever and ever;
        and they have no rest day and night, they that worship the beast
        and his image, and whoso receiveth the mark of his name."
        (Rev. 14:9-11).

     According to Daniel, this "beast" is a "king," which in our
     modern-day world is a government system.
     (Daniel 7:17-23, Rev. 19:19).

     CONCLUSION:
     The proposed rule must make exceptions for believers who have a
     sincerely held religious objection to using numbers for universal
     identification.


   o Fourth Amendment Protection:

     OBJECTION:
     The proposed rule will result in individuals being subjected to
     unreasonable detention, investigation, and questioning, i.e.,
     searches and seizures.

     ARGUMENT:
     The United States Constitution protects all individuals in the
     security of their personal papers and effects against all unreasonable
     searches and seizures; and that no exception shall be made to this
     prohibition unless a sworn affidavit is presented upon probable
     cause and then only after a subsequent Warrant has been issued
     by a court of competent jurisdiction.

     PREMISE FOR OBJECTION:
     In implementation, under the proposed rule every individual will
     be subjected to scrutiny of their personal affairs. They will be
     detained while verification of their social security number is
     confirmed. The act of demanding proof of a social security number
     card constitutes an unreasonable search and seizure of a person's
     papers and effects.

     CONCLUSION:
     The rule may not impose any condition where information will be
     mandated or the submission of personal information is required
     except when done in accordance with the Fourth Amendment to the
     United States Constitution. The rule must be changed to preserve
     this constitutional protection.


   o Constitutional Right to Travel.

     OBJECTION:
     The rule, as presently written, will unlawfully abridge citizens'
     right to travel.

     ARGUMENT:
     Americans have a constitutional right to travel the roads of
     their respective state which is an integral component of any
     American's pursuit of happiness. This rule will have the effect
     of state citizens being denied the right to drive on state roads
     simply for failing to comply with the consequential requirements
     of a federal regulation. The requirement that all drivers must
     have SSNs constitutes a new condition precedent to obtaining a
     driverbs license, yet possession of a SSN has no bearing upon
     the ability to drive a car. This requirement thus is an
     unconstitutional abridgement of every citizen's right to travel.

     PREMISE FOR OBJECTION:
     Every citizen has a constitutional right to work for a living; see
     State v. Polakowbs Realty Experts, Inc., 243 Ala. 441, 10 So.2d 461,
     462 (1942). But beyond this constitutional right, they further have
     the constitutional right to travel which is protected by the United
     States Constitution; see Crandall v. Nevada, 73 U.S. (6 Wall.) 35,
     49 (1868)("We are all citizens of the United States, and as members
     of the same community must have the right to pass and repass through
     every part of it without interruption, as freely as in our own
     states"); Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125, 78 S.Ct. 1113 (1958)
     ("The right to travel is a part of the Nlibertyb of which the citizen
     cannot be deprived without the due process of law under the Fifth
     Amendment"); Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 629, 89 S.Ct. 1322
     (1969) ("This Court long ago recognized that the nature of our
     Federal Union and our constitutional concepts of personal liberty
     unite to require that all citizens be free to travel throughout the
     length and breadth of our land uninhibited by statutes, rules, or
     regulations which unreasonably burden or restrict this movement");
     and Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330, 339, 92 S.Ct. 995 (1972)("[S]ince
     the right to travel was a constitutionally protected right, Nany
     classification which serves to penalize the exercise of that right,
     unless shown to be necessary to promote a compelling governmental
     interest, is unconstitutionalb"). See also Schachtman v. Dulles, 225
     F.2d 938,941 (D.C.Cir. 1955)("The right to travel, to go from place to
     place as the means of transportation permit, is a natural right subject
     to the rights of others and to reasonable regulation under law");
     Bergman v. United States, 565 F.Supp. 1353, 1397 (W.D. Mich. 1983)
     ("The right to travel is a basic, fundamental right under the
     Constitution, its origins premised upon a variety of constitutional
     provisions"); and Lee v. China Airlines, Ltd., 669 F.Supp. 979, 982
     (C.D.Cal. 1987)("[T]he right to travel interstate is fundamental").

     This right to travel is also a constitutional right embodied within
     the several states' constitutions.

     CONCLUSION:
     The new rules should be amended so as to eliminate the SSN
     requirement for driverbs licenses issued to domestic Americans so as
     to assure that no domestic American will be denied their right to
     travel the roads of their state simply for the lack of a SSN.


   o Supreme Court Decisions.

     OBJECTION:
     The rule, in implementation, will violate the fundamental legal
     principle of dual sovereignty by compelling the states to implement
     a federal regulatory scheme. The effect of this proposed rule will
     be the abridgment of citizens' constitutional rights.

     ARGUMENT:
     Neither Congress nor any federal agency may compel a state or states'
     officers to implement or enforce a federal regulatory program.

     PREMISE FOR OBJECTION:
     In implementation, the states will be compelled to comply with these
     federal guidelines in the issuance of all driver's license documents.
     Section 1331.6 of the proposed regulation plainly demands that all
     states must obtain SSNs from "every applicant for a license or
     document," and further requires that every state confirm the
     applicant's SSN with the Social Security Administration (SSA). But
     under the U.S. Constitution, Congress simply does not possess the
     power to regulate the issuance of driverbs licenses by the states
     of this Union; nor may Congress dictate to the states how to issue
     driverbs licenses.

     The United States Supreme Court has ruled that the federal government
     may not, neither through Congressional Acts nor Administrative Policy,
     conscript the states nor their officers to implement a federal
     regulatory scheme. In the case of New York v. United States the Court
     ruled:

        "if a federal interest is sufficiently strong to cause Congress
        to legislate, it must do so directly; it may not conscript state
        government as its agents."

     And in the case of Printz v. U.S. the Court ruled:

        "The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring
        the States to address particular problems, nor command the States'
        officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer
        or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether
        policy making is involved, and no case by case weighing of the
        burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally
        incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty."

     CONCLUSION:
     The rule must be rewritten so as not to compel the states to act
     in furtherance of the federally proposed regulatory SSN collecting
     scheme; or to compel the states to standardize their state issued
     licenses to conform to federal guidelines.


OTHER LEGAL OBJECTIONS:


o Privacy Act Prohibition

     OBJECTION:
     In implementation, the proposed rule will result in violations of
     the Privacy Act of 1974.

     ARGUMENT:
     The Privacy Act prohibits any federal, state, or local agency from
     denying any individual a benefit, right, or privilege due to the
     individual's refusal to divulge a social security number UNLESS the
     submission is REQUIRED BY FEDERAL LAW. There IS NO federal law which
     requires any state licensing agency to obtain social security numbers
     from license applicants; furthermore, if there were such a federal
     law imposing any such requirement upon a state licensing agency, the
     law would be fundamentally unconstitutional under the U.S. Supreme
     Court's New York and Printz rulings.

     PREMISE:
     The privacy Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-579) Section 7 states:

        "(a)(1) It shall be unlawful for any Federal, State or local
        government agency to deny to any individual any right, benefit,
        or privilege provided by law because of such individual's
        refusal to disclose his social security account number.
        "(2) the (The) provisions of paragraph (1) of this subsection
        shall not apply with respect to -
        "(A) any disclosure which is required by Federal statute, or
        "(B) the disclosure of a social security number to any Federal,
        State, or local agency maintaining a system of records in existence
        and operating before January 1, 1975, if such disclosure was
        required under statute or regulation adopted prior to such date
        to verify the identity of an individual.
        "(b) Any Federal, State, or local government agency which requests
        an individual to disclose his social security account number shall
        inform that individual whether that disclosure is mandatory or
        voluntary, by what statutory or other authority such number is
        solicited, and what uses will be made of it."

     Congress has no authority to compel a state agency to obtain social
     security numbers -- except with regard to state administered,
     federally funded welfare programs. However, Congress does have the
     right to LIMIT the uses that may be made of the federally assigned
     numbers; which is what the Privacy Act does.

     In practice, the effect of the proposed rule will be that state
     driver's licensing agencies will deny driver licenses to individuals
     who do not supply a social security number. This practice will
     violate the clear intent of the Privacy Act.

     The Social Security Act provides penalties for anyone who compels the
     disclosure of an individual's social security number in violation of
     federal law. Title 42 U.S. Code, section 408(a)(8) states:

        "[Whoever] discloses, uses, or compels the disclosure of the social
        security number of any person in violation of the laws of the United
        States; shall be guilty of a felony and upon conviction thereof
        shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned for not more than five
        years, or both."

     The Privacy Act prohibits any state agency from compelling an
     individual to disclose their social security number unless the
     disclosure is required by federal law. There is no federal law
     which does (or lawfully could) require a state agency to compel
     the disclosure of a driver license applicant's social security
     number. The effectual result of the proposed rule will be that
     driver's license applicants will be denied a benefit, right, or
     privilege for refusing to supply a social security number. This
     practice will violate Title 42 U.S.C., 408(a)(8). Such violations
     will likely result in a multitude of lawsuits and possibly even
     criminal prosecutions against state officials.

     CONCLUSION:
     The rule must be rewritten so as to clearly reaffirm that a state
     agency may not deny to any individual any benefit, right, or
     privilege due to the individual's refusal to obtain, or provide to
     the agency, a federally assigned social security number; and to
     reaffirm that state agencies must comply with the Privacy Act any
     time a social security number is requested.


   o Limited Class of People Who May Acquire Social Security Numbers:

     OBJECTION:
     The proposed rule will effectively limit driving to the limited
     classes of individuals who may be assigned social security
     numbers.

     ARGUMENT:
     There is no compelling police power interest in limiting the
     right to drive to only the limited classes of individuals that
     may be assigned social security numbers.

     PREMISE FOR OBJECTION:
     The Social Security Act, codified at Title 42 U.S. Code, Section
     405(c), sets out the limited class of individuals to whom the
     Commissioner of Social Security may assign numbers. The classes
     are: 1) aliens, 2) applicants for social benefits, and 3) children
     of the members of either of these two classes at the request of
     the parents or at the time they enter school. According to well
     established legal principles, the Commissioner is not authorized
     to (and therefore he may not) assign numbers to any individual who
     falls outside one of the classes set out at section 405(c).

     NOTE: If there are any other classes of Americans who may be
           assigned Social Security numbers, please so advise me
           and please provide the statutory authority.

     At the federal level, a principle of law holds that in order for
     a federal employee to perform any given act, he must be authorized
     by statute to do so. This principle is shown by a wealth of cases,
     (See United States v. Spain, 825 F.2d 1426 (10th Cir. 1987); United
     States v. Pees, 645 F. Supp. 697 (D. Col. 1986); United States v.
     Hovey, 674 F. Supp. 161 (D. Del. 1987); United States v. Emerson,
     846 F. 2d 541 (9th Cir. 1988); United States v. McLaughlin, 851 F.
     2d 283 (9th Cir. 1988); United States v. Widdowson, 916 F.2d 587,
     589 (10th Cir. 1990).

     The only federal law which authorizes the assignment of SSNs to
     anyone is found in the above quoted passage of 42 U.S.C., $405,
     and these classes do not include all the citizens of each state
     who are otherwise qualified to drive.

     The rule presently makes a special exception for aliens lawfully
     admitted to the United States who may not be issued Social Security
     cards. However, the rule does not presently make any similar
     exceptions for domestic Americans who cannot be, or have not been,
     or do not choose to be, assigned Social Security cards or numbers.
     Since some domestic Americans (who are otherwise qualified to drive)
     have NOT been, may NOT be, or do not choose to be, assigned Social
     Security numbers, the resultant effect of the rule, as presently
     written, will be that the right to drive will only be recognized for
     the limited class of individuals who are authorized to be assigned
     a Social Security number and have subsequently been assigned such
     number.

     In a recent letter from the Social Security Administration, signed
     by Mr. Charles H. Mullen, Associate Commissioner, the Agency states:

        "The Social Security Act does not require a person to have a
        Social Security number (SSN) to live and work in the United
        States, nor does it require an SSN simply for the purpose of
        having one."

     CONCLUSION:
     The proposed rule must make exceptions for citizens who have NOT
     been (or may NOT be) assigned Social Security numbers but are
     otherwise qualified to drive and be issued a driver's license.


OTHER CONCERNS:


   o The Act (P.L. 104-208) Prohibits Establishment of National ID Card:

      OBJECTION:
      The proposed rule violates the very Act it purports to implement.

      ARGUMENT AND PREMISE:
      The Act, at Section 404(h)(2), states that provisions contained
      within the Act shall not be used as an excuse for the establishment
      of a national identification card. However, the proposed rule will
      result in the establishment of a national identification card, i.e.,
      standardized state issued driver's license cards using Social
      Security numbers as a universal identifier will become nationally
      standardized and universally recognized identification documents.

      CONCLUSION:
      The proposed rule must be changed so that it will not result in
      the establishment of a national identification card.


   o Social Security Numbers Are Not to be Used for Identification:

      OBJECTION:
      The rule will establish a national identification system in the
      United States using social security numbers as the universal
      identifier in clear violation of historically established public
      policy.

      ARGUMENT AND PREMISE:
      The official U. S. government policy has always consistently been that
      it is not desirable to establish any form of national identification
      document in the U.S., and that social security numbers are not to be
      used for universal identification purposes. For example:

      - In 1971, a Social Security Administration task force issued a
      report which stated that the Social Security Administration should
      do nothing to promote the use of the social security number as an
      identifier.
      - In 1973, a report of the HEW Secretary's "Advisory Committee on
      Automated Personal Data System" concluded that the adoption of a
      universal identifier by this country was not desirable; it also
      found that the social security number was not suitable for such a
      purpose as it does not meet the criteria of a universal identifier
      that distinguishes a person from all others.
      - In 1974, Congress enacted the Privacy Act (P.L. 93-579) to limit
      governmental use of the social security number. It provided that
      no State or local government agency may withhold a benefit from a
      person simply because the individual refuses to furnish his or her
      social security number.
      - Also in 1974, the U. S. Attorney General established the "Federal
      Advisory Committee on False Identification" (FACFI) to study the
      cost to society of false ID crimes and to formulate potential
      solutions for reducing the number of these crimes. The Committee
      concluded in its report that "[a] federally-controlled national
      identification system is undesirable."
      - In 1976, the Federal Advisory Committee on False Identification
      (FACFI) recommended that penalties for misuse of social security
      numbers should be increased, and again it rejected the idea of
      using social security numbers as a national identifier.
      - In 1977, the Carter Administration proposed that the Social
      Security card be one of the authorized documents an employer could
      use to assure that a job applicant could work in this country, but
      they also stated that the social security number card should not
      become a national identity document.
      - In 1979, the Social Security Administration published an official
      "Policy Statement" regarding social security numbers, ((PPD-23),
      SSR 79-18: SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS). In it, the Administration
      stated that the agency should "avoid unilateral policies that would
      push the SSN toward a universal identifier status." Final regulations
      covering this policy were published in the Federal Register on
      February 20, 1979, at 44 FR 10369.
      - In 1981, the Reagan Administration stated that it "is explicitly
      opposed to the creation of a national identity card" with regard to
      changes proposed to social security number cards; even though it
      recognized the need for a means for employers to comply with the
      employer sanctions provisions of its immigration reform legislation.
      - In 1993, President Bill Clinton proposed a universal Health
      Insurance identification card which used the social security number
      for identification. He even appeared on television showing a sample
      version of the ID card. It was later learned that the executive-level
      plan to establish a national ID had been devised during "secret
      meetings" held by the Presidentbs wife, Hillary Clinton. However,
      Congress and the public both rejected the national identification
      document scheme.
      - In 1996, Congress passed the Illegal Immigration Reform Act which
      authorized the use of social security numbers for verifying employment
      eligibility of aliens. Section 404 of the Act stated that nothing in
      the Act was to be construed to authorize, directly or indirectly,
      the issuance or use of national identification cards.
      - And currently, the Social Security Agency offers a publication
      entitled "Social Security - Your Number" in which it states that a
      person should not use their social security card or number for
      identification.

      (All of the above information was taken from U. S. government documents
      including material published by the Social Security Administration.
      See also the Social Security Administration's own Internet home page
      regarding the history of SSNs at:
      http://www.ssa.gov/history/ssnchron.html)

      CONCLUSION:
      The rule must be rewritten so as not to violate public policy by
      implementing a national identification system.



   o The proposed rule will unlawfully impact all domestic American.

     OBJECTION:
     The rule will result in all citizens being subjected to the rule's
     identification verification requirements; however, the Act was only
     intended to apply to illegal immigrants. Domestic Americans should
     not be subjected to the rule's identification requirements.

     ARGUMENT:
     The Act was not written to regulate domestic Americans, only
     illegal aliens.

     PREMISE FOR OBJECTION:
     The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act
     of 1996, Public Law 104-208 (the law which the subject rule
     purports to implement) was enacted to address the problem of
     illegal immigration by identifying illegal immigrants. The Act
     does not contemplate subjecting "all" individuals to any type
     of proof of citizenship -- which will be the resultant effect
     if the rule is implemented as presently written. The rule will
     regulate the whole population of the country instead of the
     very small category of individuals for which the Act was
     intended.

     CONCLUSION:
     There is no statutory or constitutional authority for
     subjecting citizens to the legal immigration verification
     requirements set out under the proposed rule.

-------------------------

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION REGARDING SUBMISSION OF COMMENTS CONTACT:
Mr. William Holden, Chief, Driver Register and Traffic Records Division,
(202) 366-4800


Reply to: <fingerprint@networkusa.org>
=======================================================================
 To subscribe to the free Scan This News newsletter, send a message to
     <majordomo@efga.org> and type "subscribe scan" in the BODY.
    Or, to be removed type "unsubscribe scan" in the message BODY.
   For additional instructions see www.efga.org/about/maillist.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
             "Scan This News" is Sponsored by S.C.A.N.
           Host of the "FIGHT THE FINGERPRINT!" web page:
                www.networkusa.org/fingerprint.shtml
=======================================================================