quote:

Originally posted by josh4 ^ mean! you've been nasty lately, where'd your self control go? for shame!

dude are you in shower in your avatar? talk about nasty shame

quote:

Originally posted by Spacey Orange The violation may that the government conducted a search without any probable cause that the persons searched violated any laws. Some may argue that what the government did is not a search, but I'm not sure how tennable that is.

oic.
So basically you're not willing to cough up ANY civil liberties for the price of security.

I guess my question to you would be then, would will you do when another attack comes? (You just know it's a matter of time).
Hopefully you won't be hyprocritical and blame the government for not trying to do it's job then...

It's amazing that some people are jumping on this 4th ammendment for their own sake but not the sake of their country.
To me it just seems selfish, and I'm pretty sure that's what the polls are indicating too; people understand that this isn't a huge loss in the civil liberties department.
They understand that the government isn't data mining as the MSM is suggesting; the government needs access to call patterns in a time of crisis.
If the government wanted to know where you were, they'd find you, don't worry

[EDIT]
Here's the actual question asked in a snap poll by the Washington Post:

It's been reported that the National Security Agency has been collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans. It then analyzes calling patterns in an effort to identify possible terrorism suspects, without listening to or recording the conversations. Would you consider this an acceptable or unacceptable way for the federal government to investigate terrorism? Do you feel that way strongly or somewhat?


Results:

            ------- Acceptable ------   ----- Unacceptable ------    No   

             NET   Strongly   Somewhat   NET   Somewhat   Strongly   opin.

5/11/06      63       41         22      35       11         24        2

___________________
"...End? No, the journey doesn't end here. Death is just another path...one that we all must take.
The grey rain-curtain of this world rolls back, and all change to silver glass...and then you see it...
...white shores...and beyond...the far green country under a swift sunrise."

Last edited by Fir3start3r on May-14-2006 at 15:47

Here's a good article on the subject; it pretty much reflects my views on the subject anyways (of course he's much more articulate )

quote:

To connect the dots, you have to see the dots May 14, 2006 BY MARK STEYN SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST Here are two news stories from the end of last week. The first one you may have heard about. As "The Today Show's" Matt Lauer put it: "Does the government have your number? This morning a shocking new report that the National Security Agency has been secretly collecting the phone records of tens of millions of Americans." The second story comes from the United Kingdom and what with Lauer's hyperventilating you may have missed it. It was the official report into the July 7 bus and Tube bombings. As The Times of London summarized the conclusions: "Mohammad Sidique Khan, the leader of the bomb cell, had come to the attention of MI5 [Britain's domestic intelligence agency] on five occasions but had never been pursued as a serious suspect . . . "A lack of communication between police Special Branch units, MI5 and other agencies had hampered the intelligence-gathering operation; "There was a lack of co-operation with foreign intelligence services and inadequate intelligence coverage in . . ." Etc., etc., ad nauseam. So there are now two basic templates in terrorism media coverage: Template A (note to editors: to be used after every terrorist atrocity): "Angry family members, experts and opposition politicians demand to know why complacent government didn't connect the dots." Template B (note to editors: to be used in the run-up to the next terrorist atrocity): "Shocking new report leaked to New York Times for Pulitzer Prize Leak Of The Year Award nomination reveals that paranoid government officials are trying to connect the dots! See pages 3,4,6,7,8, 13-37." How do you connect the dots? To take one example of what we're up against, two days before 9/11, a very brave man, the anti-Taliban resistance leader Ahmed Shah Massoud, was assassinated in Afghanistan by killers posing as journalists. His murderers were Algerians traveling on Belgian passports who'd arrived in that part of the world on visas issued by the Pakistani High Commission in the United Kingdom. That's three more countries than many Americans have visited. The jihadists are not "primitives". They're part of a sophisticated network: They travel the world, see interesting places, meet interesting people -- and kill them. They're as globalized as McDonald's -- but, on the whole, they fill in less paperwork. They're very good at compartmentalizing operations: They don't leave footprints, just a toeprint in Country A in Time Zone B and another toe in Country E in Time Zone K. You have to sift through millions of dots to discern two that might be worth connecting. I'm a strong believer in privacy rights. I don't see why Americans are obligated to give the government their bank account details and the holdings therein. Other revenue agencies in other free societies don't require that level of disclosure. But, given that the people of the United States are apparently entirely cool with that, it's hard to see why lists of phone numbers (i.e., your monthly statement) with no identifying information attached to them is of such a vastly different order of magnitude. By definition, "connecting the dots" involves getting to see the dots in the first place. Sen. Pat Leahy (D-Vt.) feels differently. "Look at this headline," huffed the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee. "The secret collection of phone call records of tens of millions of Americans. Now, are you telling me that tens of millions of Americans are involved with al-Qaida?" No. But next time he's flying from D.C. to Burlington, Vt., on a Friday afternoon he might look at the security line: Tens of millions of Americans are having to take their coats and shoes off! Are you telling me that tens of millions of ordinary shoe-wearing Americans are involved with al-Qaida? Of course not. Fifteen out of 19 of the 9/11 killers were citizens of Saudi Arabia. So let's scrap the tens of millions of law-abiding phone records, and say we only want to examine the long-distance phone bills of, say, young men of Saudi origin living in the United States. Can you imagine what Leahy and Lauer would say to that? Oh, no! Racial profiling! The government's snooping on people whose only crime is "dialing while Arab." In a country whose Transportation Security Administration personnel recently pulled Daniel Brown off the plane as a security threat because he had traces of gunpowder on his boots -- he was a uniformed U.S. Marine on his way home from Iraq -- in such a culture any security measure will involve "tens of millions of Americans": again by definition, if one can't profile on the basis of religion or national origin or any other identifying mark with identity-group grievance potential, every program will have to be at least nominally universal. Last week, apropos the Moussaoui case, I remarked on the absurdity of victims of the London Blitz demanding the German perpetrators be brought before a British court. Melanie Phillips, a columnist with the Daily Mail in London and author of the alarming new book Londonistan, responded dryly, "Ah, but if we were fighting World War Two now, we'd lose." She may be right. It's certainly hard to imagine Pat Leahy as FDR or Harry Truman or any other warmongering Democrat of yore. To be sure, most of Pat's Vermont voters would say there is no war; it's just a lot of fearmongering got up by Bush and Cheney to distract from the chads they stole in Florida or whatever. And they're right -- if, by "war," you mean tank battles in the North African desert and air forces bombing English cities night after night. But today no country in the world can fight that kind of war with America. If that's all "war" is, then (once more by definition) there can be no war. If you seek to weaken, demoralize and bleed to death the United States and its allies, you can only do it asymmetrically -- by killing thousands of people and then demanding a criminal trial, by liaising with terrorist groups in Afghanistan and Pakistan and then demanding the government cease inspecting your phone records. I yield to no one in my antipathy to government, but not everyone who's on the federal payroll is a boob, a time-server, a politically motivated malcontent or principal leak supplier to the New York Times. Suppose you're a savvy mid-level guy in Washington, you've just noticed a pattern, you think there might be something in it. But it requires enormous will to talk your bosses into agreeing to investigate further, and everyone up the chain is thinking, gee, if this gets out, will Pat Leahy haul me before the Senate and kill my promotion prospects? There was a lot of that before 9/11, and thousands died. And five years on? ©Mark Steyn 2006

>>Source<<

___________________
"...End? No, the journey doesn't end here. Death is just another path...one that we all must take.
The grey rain-curtain of this world rolls back, and all change to silver glass...and then you see it...
...white shores...and beyond...the far green country under a swift sunrise."

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r oic. So basically you're not willing to cough up ANY civil liberties for the price of security. I guess my question to you would be then, would will you do when another attack comes? (You just know it's a matter of time). Hopefully you won't be hyprocritical and blame the government for not trying to do it's job then...

I'm not willing to give up any civil liberties. I believe in the rule of law and the majesty of the US constitution. To play on Benjamin Franklin's words, the people who give up their civil liberties for security deserve neither.

Think about it: what you and others are suggesting is that the americans should allow their government to adopt policies and be guided by political philosophies that would probably be approved by the very same 'terrorists' that the US government wants to eliminate. If the the US government does that, the terrorists win.

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r It's amazing that some people are jumping on this 4th ammendment for their own sake but not the sake of their country. To me it just seems selfish, and I'm pretty sure that's what the polls are indicating too; people understand that this isn't a huge loss in the civil liberties department. They understand that the government isn't data mining as the MSM is suggesting; the government needs access to call patterns in a time of crisis. If the government wanted to know where you were, they'd find you, don't worry [EDIT] Here's the actual question asked in a snap poll by the Washington Post: It's been reported that the National Security Agency has been collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans. It then analyzes calling patterns in an effort to identify possible terrorism suspects, without listening to or recording the conversations. Would you consider this an acceptable or unacceptable way for the federal government to investigate terrorism? Do you feel that way strongly or somewhat? Results: ------- Acceptable ------ ----- Unacceptable ------ No NET Strongly Somewhat NET Somewhat Strongly opin. 5/11/06 63 41 22 35 11 24 2

As i wrote above:

quote:

The US is nation of laws, not of polls. If people don't like the laws , then let them go through the legislative process.

___________________
UnauthorizedTranceAddict Youtube Channel where I post older mixes from the TA DJ Promotion Forum

My mixes:

Still up:1:2

Down:3:4:5

quote:

Originally posted by Spacey Orange I'm not willing to give up any civil liberties. I believe in the rule of law and the majesty of the US constitution. To play on Benjamin Franklin's words, the people who give up their civil liberties for security deserve neither

Unfortunately, we don't live in that type of world anymore.
This is not some straightforward conventional war.
By handcuffing your own government, you give the terrorists the advantage.
There is a fine line between security and liberties, I totally agree, but there cannot be victory without something lost.
If we think logically about what is being asked of the American people is really quite insignificant in the grand scheme.
I mean really, does it really matter if they knew location X called location Y at such-and-such time?
How does that affect you really?

quote:

Think about it: what you and others are suggesting is that the americans should allow their government to adopt policies and be guided by political philosophies that would probably be approved by the very same 'terrorists' that the US government wants to eliminate. If the the US government does that, the terrorists win.

I'm not following you here.
These policies aren't 'suggested' by any terrorist, philosophical or otherwise; where'd that come from?
The terrorists don't play by any rules at all, have no guidelines to follow and use own polocies against us knowing full well that Western liberal winers will defend them.
It's the selfish, knee-jerked reactions from those liberals that will winning the war for the terrorists.
It's a battle of philosophies and terrorists know we have a soft spot for 'all things being equal' while clutching our civil liberties close to our hearts.
What are we willing to sacrifice to win this war?

___________________
"...End? No, the journey doesn't end here. Death is just another path...one that we all must take.
The grey rain-curtain of this world rolls back, and all change to silver glass...and then you see it...
...white shores...and beyond...the far green country under a swift sunrise."

this whole indignant charade is just another example of liberals being led by the nose into more fear mongering.

this one is awesome

quote:

So if we’re going to have a national conversation about government data mining, by all means let’s have it. But let’s not just put the administration and General Hayden under the microscope. Let’s examine the practices of the opposition that purports to find warehousing information and tracking data about American citizens to be the death-knell of liberty. Let’s take a hard look at the elected officials who are taking a hard look at the NSA. Here are a just a few questions we might ask Democratic-party chairman Howard Dean and the members of the judiciary and intelligence committees currently grousing for the cameras:· 1. Do you maintain databases of American citizens for fundraising purposes?· 2. Do those databases contain names, addresses, telephone numbers, e-mail addresses, and other identifying information?· 3. Do the databases contain information about the interests of the citizens who have been entered into them? About candidates or causes to which they have previously donated money?· 4. Are those databases searchable? If so, what search criteria do you use to divide these American citizens into various categories?· Do you do targeted mailings for purposes of raising funds or pushing particular issues?· 5. When you target, how do you know whom to target? That is, what kind of information do you maintain in your databases to guide you about which potential donors or voters might be fruitful to tap on which particular issues?· 6. Do you trade information about American citizens with other politicians and organizations in the expectation that they might reciprocate and you all might mutually exploit the benefits? I’m betting the answers to these questions might prove pretty interesting. Hard as this may be to comprehend, we may even find that our Big Brother on Capitol Hill has been collecting information on all of us … without (gasp!) judicial warrants.— Andrew C. McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor, is a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.

>source<

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo this whole indignant charade is just another example of liberals being led by the nose into more fear mongering. this one is awesome >source<

I've got a quick coupla questions to rebut your national review buddies, Q -

1. Did those individuals in question on Dean's campaign database lists willingly and voluntary give their names to be put onto those lists?

2. Could they under any and all given circumstances ask and even demand under law to be removed from such lists if they so choose?

3. Can we say the same thing about American citizens who's names are in the database lists that were given up by the telecommunications companies to the NSA?

Stop being a dipshit for once in your life, dear Q. The only indignant charade being held is by twits like yourself whom apologize for Bush's highly questionable actions at each and every turn.

Keep 'em comin.....

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo look dude, FDR was an example of "any" president worth being called an apologist for defending such action. such legal action.

I think you're going to have to do a better job explaining how this is legal in your view. I just outlined a few parts as to the likelihood of illegality, yet you've offered nothing to refute.

Why don't cha just try for once.

quote:

around your birthday.

Aren't we similar in age? Actually I woulda been 4. No need to knock a fellow old fart.

quote:

no one gives a damn if it's a straw man argument or not.

Gotcha. Sorry to point out your logically fallacious argument. Won't happen again.

quote:

you would not be so indignant about this if it were Chuck Schumer doing this as President. thats just my gut feeling.

You really should use more than just your gut when you are arguing with me. We might actually have a worthwhile debate in that manner.

quote:

you are sickeningly blinded my hate and bias.

Clue #57 when Q5's argument turns to shit: label the opponent with hatred/bias innuendos.

But I am curious as to where in this thread you might see hatred or tones of hatred of any sort. I must admit I don't appreciate a helluva lot if our Administration is breaking the law as well as some telecom giants, but as to whether or not such feelings merit weakness to the points in my argument I would be darn curious if you could point it out as such in detail.

quote:

no. FISA makes distinctions between what is "electronic surveillance" of communications and addressing info of communications. FISA can be interpreted as a non-regulatory entinty with regard to those billing addresses.

Correct on the second part, but very possibly incorrect on the first. Read what FISA states here on Section 1801(f)(1) :

quote:

"electronic surveillance" "the acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device of the contents of any wire or radio communication sent by or intended to be received by a particular, known United States person who is in the United States. . . http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casec...ction_1801.html

What are the "contents"? Here in section 1801(n):

quote:

"Contents," when used with respect to a communication, includes any information concerning the identity of the parties to such communication or the existence, substance, purport, or meaning of that communication

And this does not include the telecom companies violating the Stored Communications Act (SCA) as well as possibly violating the Communications Act of 1934 that I outlined earlier.

quote:

NSA data mining is also protected from the 4th Amendment by Supreme Court precedent.

Irrelevant. The data mining itself is not the issue. It's involving telecom companies that may violate telecom laws as well as possibly violating FISA.

You do have to ask yourself this question: Qwest demanded that Bush and the NSA give them certainty in writing that they will not be violating any laws if they gave their databases over.

Bush declined.

Qwest told Bush to take a hike.

Why did that happen? Why did Bush not give them legal confidence?

quote:

don't count on the mid-terms then.

Well in that case when the Dems. hand your corrupt and ethically challenged GOP party their collective asses, I guess I will be proven incorrect.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r Unfortunately, we don't live in that type of world anymore. This is not some straightforward conventional war. By handcuffing your own government, you give the terrorists the advantage. There is a fine line between security and liberties, I totally agree, but there cannot be victory without something lost. If we think logically about what is being asked of the American people is really quite insignificant in the grand scheme. I mean really, does it really matter if they knew location X called location Y at such-and-such time? How does that affect you really?

First, the world is still same as it was before. I can't, for the life of me, understand why people say that the world is a different place. Political violence by non-governmental actors against non-governmental actors existed before 9/11 as it will much beyond.

Second, this is not a war. If american, and others will deal with this political violence successfully, we must start thinging and acting rationally, analytically, and intelligently. Calling it a war only muddies up the water.

Third, any confidence that my communications, between myself and whoever I called or called me, would only be known to me and the phone company is destroyed. That may not mean much to you but to many it does.

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r I'm not following you here. These policies aren't 'suggested' by any terrorist, philosophical or otherwise; where'd that come from? The terrorists don't play by any rules at all, have no guidelines to follow and use own polocies against us knowing full well that Western liberal winers will defend them. It's the selfish, knee-jerked reactions from those liberals that will winning the war for the terrorists. It's a battle of philosophies and terrorists know we have a soft spot for 'all things being equal' while clutching our civil liberties close to our hearts. What are we willing to sacrifice to win this war?

I wrote:

quote:

Think about it: what you and others are suggesting is that the americans should allow their government to adopt policies and be guided by political philosophies that would probably be approved by the very same 'terrorists' that the US government wants to eliminate. If the the US government does that, the terrorists win.

By this is mean that Bush and Cheney and his supporters are pursuing an all powerful government that can search anything and anyone and can detain anyone indefinitely and without charges. I'm surmising that these are policies that many islamic fundamentalist would probably approve. In essence, the US is becoming that which we want to destroy.

Finally, people are being not being asked for anything by anyone. I stated in a previous post that the companies and the government could have gotten permission and inserted a waiver in the phone bill. I'm sure people would have signed away their rights (as they do all the time) and this whole mess of potentially illegal searches would have been avoided. But they didn't.

As an aside, is the government asking anyone to sacrifice anything? (Besides, the soldiers and their families of course.) The president keeps slashing taxes, deficits continue to rise, and the use of energy only increases.

___________________
UnauthorizedTranceAddict Youtube Channel where I post older mixes from the TA DJ Promotion Forum

My mixes:

Still up:1:2

Down:3:4:5

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 1. Did those individuals in question on Dean's campaign database lists willingly and voluntary give their names to be put onto those lists?

aside from the fact that you have mischaracterized the article by not understanding that it's ALL of Congress that mines the pop. for data, not just your fearless leader. the answer to your question would be, in most cases, no. the names and addresses of voters are traded like baseball cards. 1 case in point.

quote:

Mark Grebner: Here's another side of story on voter list By Mark Grebner Last week, state Elections Board director Kevin Kennedy wrote a column critical of my firm and our recently settled lawsuit against the board. Our perspective is different. Over the past eight years, Wisconsin Voter Lists has built a statewide voter list by collecting and standardizing public records from local election clerks. Some of this information has been in electronic form, but we have also photographed and copied millions of pencil-and-paper records. Our data are used by both major political parties, as well as candidates. For a while, we faced competition from both political parties, which as it turned out were relying on data compiled by state employees working illegally at public expense. The payroll costs ran well into the millions of dollars. Many of the officials responsible have been removed from office and/or convicted of crimes. In any event, they are no longer in the voter list business. Recently, Wisconsin obtained federal money to create a similar statewide database, selecting Accenture to do the work. Our firm, which has 15 employees and spent $600,000 to build our file, was deemed unqualified by the Elections Board. Three of four states that hired Accenture to compile their voter lists have fired the company, for breach of contract and incompetence. Alternating between praising their work and threatening to fine them, Wisconsin clings to Accenture, ignoring the missed deadlines, cost overruns, and poorly performing software. Because the state has now committed to spending more than $27.5million to build a voter file similar to ours, my firm asked for a copy, so we can concentrate on collecting other information not available through the state list. We thought expensive technology might actually increase access to public records, not limit it. In response to our Dec. 5 request, the Elections Board gave us a number of reasons all ridiculous for refusing to let us see the state voter file. Delay and denial were their primary tactics. First, we were told the entire voter file was "a draft memorandum," which couldn't be released until it was completed. Does a database meet the legal definition of a "memorandum," which is compiled in order to help an official make a decision? In any event, will this database ever be complete? And even if, say, Ladysmith isn't done, why can't we look at the data from Racine? Then they told us we could have the data, but that we'd have to get it directly from the hundreds of individual municipal clerks. According to the clerks we phoned, just as we expected, the state had not provided them with any method to obtain a list from the state's new voter database forus or for themselves. The Elections Board now admits there is no procedure for providing that information to the local clerks so they must have been kidding when they told us we could obtain it. Finally, the Elections Board told us the reason we couldn't see the data was that it contained some private information (such as phone numbers) and that they were incapable of separating it out for us. This appears to have been an outright lie not only does the technology obviously exist to separate out private information, but, since our lawsuit settlement, they've now agreed to provide it. All we have ever asked for was a copy of the fields that are public record. In good faith and in an attempt to resolve the matter amicably, we gave the Elections Board a copy of our legal complaint and made them aware of the potential for litigation weeks before we filed our lawsuit. It became clear that we needed to bring our request before a judge, who would have the power to place them under oath and compel answers. We also filed a new request with the Elections Board for additional data that had been collected since our first request. Before our court hearing started, the Elections Board agreed to provide everything we asked for, if we would dismiss the suit. Our only concession was to agree the board won't be required to pay my attorney fees. As I write this, I still await the delivery of the preliminary voter list data. The Elections Board is unable to upload the file to our FTP site, a common file delivery method, so we are waiting for the postal service to deliver a CD to us sometime this week. Mark Grebner is the owner of Wisconsin Voter Lists, based in Watertown. Published: May 10, 2006 >source<

quote:

2. Could they under any and all given circumstances ask and even demand under law to be removed from such lists if they so choose?

i'm fairly sure they could ask. but do you really think if they ask to be taken off of one list that that would apply to all nationwide databases? (remember not to be naive) and if that were true then what would it matter after the fact?

quote:

3. Can we say the same thing about American citizens who's names are in the database lists that were given up by the telecommunications companies to the NSA?

according to your bible, USA Today, they're just numbers. so the question is bogus.

quote:

Stop being a dipshit for once in your life, dear Q. The only indignant charade being held is by twits like yourself whom apologize for Bush's highly questionable actions at each and every turn.

in your case, i'll take it back...your indignation is not a charade, it's fucking clinical. it's what is wrong with your party.

the media is not over-hyping this. it's my imagination.

you want ad-hoc? IMO you have either fallen for the fear mongering. or purposely further it, knowing, in your mind, that it is really just hysteria.

Last edited by Q5echo on May-15-2006 at 01:05

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Correct on the second part, but very possibly incorrect on the first. Read what FISA states here on Section 1801(f)(1) :

FISA states "content" big whoop. FISA's content is not applicable in this case. we are dealing with "pen registers". like i said, FISA can be interpreted as a non-regulatory entity with respect to "pen registers". you have mis-read this. includes any information concerning the identity of the parties to such communication or the existence, substance, purport, or meaning of that communication

quote:

And this does not include the telecom companies violating the Stored Communications Act (SCA) as well as possibly violating the Communications Act of 1934 that I outlined earlier.

yeah, those lawers are gonna lose. anyones phone number can be obtained by the FED's without court-order in this case.

quote:

Irrelevant. The data mining itself is not the issue.

okay dumbass you just went on record saying you are okay the NSA's doing their job. is that right?

quote:

It's involving telecom companies that may violate telecom laws as well as possibly violating FISA.

Title 18, Chapter 121, Section 2709 of the U.S. Code.

quote:

You do have to ask yourself this question: Qwest demanded that Bush and the NSA give them certainty in writing that they will not be violating any laws if they gave their databases over. Bush declined. Qwest told Bush to take a hike. Why did that happen? Why did Bush not give them legal confidence?

my guess is that the NSA decided that the Qwest request was not that important. if the NSA really wanted it they could have gotten it. why did the other three pony up? because they understand the law. but that is not to say that Qwest doesn't.

quote:

Well in that case when the Dems. hand your corrupt and ethically challenged GOP party their collective asses, I guess I will be proven incorrect.

i don't have to wait that long.

"Voter databases must be secured!!"

no shit?

quote:

The Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) orders each state to create a "single, uniform, official, centralized, interactive computerized statewide voter registration" database that will be linked to other records such as ones stored by motor vehicle agencies. HAVA does say the database must be protected with "adequate technological security" but offers no details and fails to require encryption, for instance. The extended deadline was January 2006, but many states have not complied.

>>source<<

i thought this was tangental to the topic.