I got this e-mail from Virginia Taxpayer's Association member, and am posting for your feedback:

===============================

SCAN THIS NEWS > 1.13.2000 > > Alert: Big Brother on the way > > --- > Please forward this message to everyone you know who is concerned about > privacy and rights. > > I called this message an "ALERT" primarily because there is misinformation > beginning to circulate about the recent Supreme Court decision which > overturned three lower court rulings in the matter of the falsely named > Driver' Privacy Protection Act of 1994 (DPPA). > > It is very important that people understand that this Act was intentionally > misnamed to get it through Congress and to fool uninformed Americans into > believing that it would "protect their privacy" when in fact it does just > the opposite. (After all, what self-respecting representatives would want > known for having voted against a "privacy" bill?) This was a trick -- a > ruse. This is a horrible law. But worse still, some privacy groups are > heralding the decision which will work against privacy. > > The bill contains one, single-sentence paragraph ostensibly limiting the > release of information, (and even this provision effectively only prohibits > release of information to citizens). However, the Act has fifteen > "exception" clauses authorizing release to every "Big Brother" type entity > imaginable for a multitude of authorized uses. > > The Court's decision will result in the establishment of a multitude of > centralized databases, all authorized by the DPPA. > > This ruling will have a devastating, long-range impact on the battle for > "privacy," but an even more devastating impact on the battle to regain lost > >rights. Anyone who contends otherwise does not understand, or simply has > not > read, the law. > > I do not normally urge readers to forward ScanThisNews Alerts, but due to > the importance of this issue, and the potential for misunderstanding > because > of the Act's name, and the misinformation that is beginning to circulate, I > encourage you to forward this message to others. > > Scott > --- > > Supreme Court gives ok to centralized databases > (with support by some misinformed "privacy groups") > > The ruling on Wednesday by the US Supreme Court reversing three lower court > decisions (where it was held that the Driver's Privacy Protection Act of > 994 was unconstitutional), paves the way for Big Brother to establish > centralized databases on every citizen. > > The Act (DPPA) authorizes disclosure of personal information from motor > vehicle and driver license records "for use by a business to verify the > accuracy of personal information submitted to that business and to prevent > fraud." It also permits disclosure for use by any government agency, > including any court or law enforcement agency, in carrying out its > functions. > > Under the authority of the DPPA, a New Hampshire company, Image Data, began > purchasing driver's records from states for the development of a central > database to be used to "prevent fraud." The company intended to market to > private retailers access to their central database so that customer > identity > could be instantly verified during checking and credit card transactions. > > In his January, 1999 State of the Union Address, President Clinton > announced > a new, federally run "digital mug shot" database program. While details as > to how this database would be developed were not revealed in the Address, > some clues are provided in other federal publications. > > An official booklet published by the US Department of Transportation with > help of the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators for the > benefit of law enforcement, The Highway Safety Deskbook, states: > > : With a central image database of every driver in a state, the > : public safety community has a ready-made storehouse of photos to > : be used in criminal investigations. Due to the electronic nature > : of these images, they can be obtained in seconds via a computer > : retrieval unit in the department or even faxed or thermal printed > : directly to the patrol car. These same images can also be brought > : into a photo array for suspect identification. > : > : The uses for these images are limited only by the wants and needs > : of the public safety community. > > Clearly the "mug shot" database envisioned by President Clinton is the same > one descried in the DoT report which states that it will be developed using > driver license photos. The DPPA will facilitate the development or such a > database. > > This DPPA law is the worst thing that could have happened to anyone who > regards their personal information as "theirs" and "private." This Act > wrests control over private information held by the states away from the > states and citizens, and places it instead in the hands of a centralized > federal government which has expressed its intentions of developing a > central database of drivers' photos and identifying data. > > Sadly, some groups who do not fully understand the implications of the > DPPA -- and the true anti-privacy, big government motives behind its > implementation -- are praising the Court's DPPA ruling. This is a huge > mistake which will be proven out over the coming years as more and more > centralized databases are established using drivers license and motor > vehicle records collected under the authority of the DPPA. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > [another report] > > Supremes put license date on auction block > > The US Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that states must release private > driver records as required under a falsely named, pretentious law enacted > in > 1994. > > The federal Drivers Privacy Protection Act requires (DPPA) requires states > to release private records to a multitude of federal agencies under > numerous > federal programs. It also allows departments of motor vehicles to sell > drivers information such as names, addressees, social security numbers, and > photos to private third party entities. This fact is often missed by the > trusting public, and even by many so-called "privacy groups," because of > the > deceptive name given to the bill, "drivers privacy protection act." > > A few "privacy groups" are even singing the praises of this "privacy > destroying" ruling, having also been tricked by the name which includes the > phrase "privacy protection." > > In ruling that the DPPA was "constitutional," the Court reversed three > lower > court rulings from South Carolina, Alabama, and Colorado -- all three of > which had ruled the DPPA was violated the Tenth Amendment (among other > things). > > Under the DPPA, the federal government will take full control over all > state-held driver and motor vehicle records. The sole purpose of the Act > was > in fact to wrench away authority over these records from the states. > > One provision in the DPPA permits states to disclose personal information > from motor vehicle records for use in verifying information submitted to a > business, to prevent fraud, or to pursue legal remedies where it is > believed > that inaccurate information was submitted to a business or agency. > > Based upon this permissive clause, almost immediately after the misnamed > "DPPA" was adopted, a company formed specifically to develop a huge > database > of driver records for use by retail outlets in verifying the identity of > customers. The company, Image Data LLC of Nashua, NH, began purchasing > records from several states, including South Carolina, based solely upon > the > authority under the DPPA. The company intended to install small "image > monitors" at retail outlets (who purchased their service) which would > display a customer's driver's license photo during transactions where > identity needed to be confirmed. The equipment would have allowed stores to > "swipe" bar-coded licenses or magnetic-strip credit cards through a reader > >which would then retrieve the "verifying" photos and other data through > phone wire connections to Image Data's database. > > It was later learned that among the drivers information sold to Image Data > included children's photos taken from state-issued identity cards. > > In September of '99, the Washington Post reported that the Secret Service > provided funding for the Image Data operation. As a consequence of public > objections, and the fact that the provisional Act (the DPPA) which > authorized the sale had been ruled unconstitutional by three courts, Image > Data very reluctantly announced that it would suspend its purchase of > license data. > > As a result of the Supreme Court ruling on Wednesday upholding the DPPA, > businesses can now begin to develop such databases as the one first > undertaken by Image Data. > > The DPPA requires disclosure of personal information "for use in connection > with matters of motor vehicle or driver safety and theft, motor vehicle > emissions, motor vehicle product alterations, recalls, or advisories, > performance monitoring of motor vehicles and dealers by motor vehicle > manufacturers, and removal of non-owner records from the original owner > records of motor vehicle manufacturers to carry out the purposes of titles > I > and IV of the Anti Car Theft Act of 1992, the Automobile Information > Disclosure Act, the Clean Air Act, and chapters 301, 305, and 321-331 of > title 49." 18 U S C 2721(b). > > The DPPA also permits DMVs to disclose personal information from motor > vehicle records for use "by any government agency" or by "any private > person > or entity acting on behalf of a Federal, State or local agency in carrying > out its functions." 18 USC 2721(b)(1) (1994 ed. and Supp. III). The Act > also > allows States to divulge drivers' personal information for any > state-authorized purpose relating to the operation of a motor vehicle or > public safety, 2721(b)(14); for use in connection with car safety, > prevention of car theft, and promotion of driver safety, 2721(b)(2); for > use > by a business to verify the accuracy of personal information submitted to > that business and to prevent fraud or pursue legal remedies if the > information that the individual submitted to the business is revealed to > have been inaccurate, 2721(b)(3); in connection with court, agency, or > self-regulatory body proceedings, 2721(b)(4); for research purposes so long > as the information is not further disclosed or used to contact the > individuals to whom the data pertain, 2721(b)(5); for use by insurers in > connection with claims investigations, antifraud activities, rating or > underwriting, 2721(b)(6); to notify vehicle owners that their vehicle has > been towed or impounded, 2721(b)(7); for use by licensed private > investigative agencies or security services for any purpose permitted by > the > DPPA, 18 U. S. C. 2721(b)(8); and in connection with private toll > transportation services, 2721(b)(10). > > --- > > Clinton announces "mug shot" database > http://www.networkusa.org/fingerprint/page1/fp-digital-mug-shot-photos.html > > DoT Highway Safety Deskbook > http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/enforce/deskbk.html > > Secret Service aided license photo database > http://www.cnn.com/US/9902/18/license.photos/ > > U.S. Helped Fund License Photo Database > http://washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/business/daily/feb99/privacy18.htm > > Driver's Privacy Protection Act of 1994 as codified > http://www.networkusa.org/fingerprint/page1b/fp-dmv-records-18-usc-123.html > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Social security is the bane of individual liberty. - SAM > > > >

-- Hokie (Hokie_@hotmail.com), January 18, 2000

Answers

A paragraph break would be nice. (smile) then I might actually READ it! (Chuckle).

-- JoseMiami (caris@prodigy.net), January 18, 2000.

Try again, not readable!

-- W (me@home.now), January 18, 2000.

You expected, maybe, privacy, from this administration?

-- Mad Monk (madmonk@hawaiian.net), January 18, 2000.

The technology advances, the uses for it, both good and bad continually increases.

Privacy is being eroded in a number of ways, used to be, if you fit certain profiles, you threw out more junk mail than the average person. Now you are being fitted into so many databases in so many categories, it's almost incomprehesible.

Unless there is some kind of concerted action by the people (friendly referred to as the "sheeple" on this forum) to raise a complaint in a very loud collective voice to our public servants, it's only going to move faster and faster to the point where there isn't much you can do which won't be able to be accessed by someone, visually "livetime" or by electronic archived records.

We can only hope it doesn't infringe on what we feel are "our rights" before it can be reigned in, when it might indeed, trample these rights.

Personally, I believe the train is already moving down the tracks faster than it can be slowed down. Who knows if it's on a safe route?

Please excuse any typo's or misspellings in my reply, thanks.

-- Michael (michaelteever@buffalo.com), January 18, 2000.

Michael, I agree, it is moving at a blurring rate.

My appologies for not correcting the format. Here goes again:

==============================================================

SCAN THIS NEWS

1.13.2000

Alert: Big Brother on the way

---

Please forward this message to everyone you know who is concerned about privacy and rights.

I called this message an "ALERT" primarily because there is misinformation beginning to circulate about the recent Supreme Court decision which overturned three lower court rulings in the matter of the falsely named Driver' Privacy Protection Act of 1994 (DPPA).

It is very important that people understand that this Act was intentionally misnamed to get it through Congress and to fool uninformed Americans into believing that it would "protect their privacy" when in fact it does just the opposite. (After all, what self-respecting representatives would want known for having voted against a "privacy" bill?) This was a trick -- a ruse. This is a horrible law. But worse still, some privacy groups are heralding the decision which will work against privacy.

The bill contains one, single-sentence paragraph ostensibly limiting the release of information, (and even this provision effectively only prohibits release of information to citizens). However, the Act has fifteen "exception" clauses authorizing release to every "Big Brother" type entity imaginable for a multitude of authorized uses.

The Court's decision will result in the establishment of a multitude of centralized databases, all authorized by the DPPA.

This ruling will have a devastating, long-range impact on the battle for "privacy," but an even more devastating impact on the battle to regain lost rights. Anyone who contends otherwise does not understand, or simply has not read, the law.

I do not normally urge readers to forward ScanThisNews Alerts, but due to the importance of this issue, and the potential for misunderstanding because of the Act's name, and the misinformation that is beginning to circulate, I encourage you to forward this message to others.

Scott

---

Supreme Court gives ok to centralized databases (with support by some misinformed "privacy groups")

The ruling on Wednesday by the US Supreme Court reversing three lower court decisions (where it was held that the Driver's Privacy Protection Act of 994 was unconstitutional), paves the way for Big Brother to establish centralized databases on every citizen.

The Act (DPPA) authorizes disclosure of personal information from motor vehicle and driver license records "for use by a business to verify the accuracy of personal information submitted to that business and to prevent fraud." It also permits disclosure for use by any government agency, including any court or law enforcement agency, in carrying out its functions.

Under the authority of the DPPA, a New Hampshire company, Image Data, began purchasing driver's records from states for the development of a central database to be used to "prevent fraud."

The company intended to market to private retailers access to their central database so that customer identity could be instantly verified during checking and credit card transactions.

In his January, 1999 State of the Union Address, President Clinton announced a new, federally run "digital mug shot" database program. While details as to how this database would be developed were not revealed in the Address, some clues are provided in other federal publications.

An official booklet published by the US Department of Transportation with help of the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators for the benefit of law enforcement, The Highway Safety Deskbook, states:

: With a central image database of every driver in a state, the

: public safety community has a ready-made storehouse of photos to

: be used in criminal investigations. Due to the electronic nature

: of these images, they can be obtained in seconds via a computer

: retrieval unit in the department or even faxed or thermal printed

: directly to the patrol car. These same images can also be brought

: into a photo array for suspect identification. :

: The uses for these images are limited only by the wants and needs

: of the public safety community.

Clearly the "mug shot" database envisioned by President Clinton is the same one descried in the DoT report which states that it will be developed using driver license photos. The DPPA will facilitate the development or such a database.

This DPPA law is the worst thing that could have happened to anyone who regards their personal information as "theirs" and "private." This Act wrests control over private information held by the states away from the states and citizens, and places it instead in the hands of a centralized federal government which has expressed its intentions of developing a central database of drivers' photos and identifying data.

Sadly, some groups who do not fully understand the implications of the DPPA -- and the true anti-privacy, big government motives behind its implementation -- are praising the Court's DPPA ruling. This is a huge mistake which will be proven out over the coming years as more and more centralized databases are established using drivers license and motor vehicle records collected under the authority of the DPPA.

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

[another report]

Supremes put license date on auction block

The US Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that states must release private driver records as required under a falsely named, pretentious law enacted in 1994.

The federal Drivers Privacy Protection Act requires (DPPA) requires states to release private records to a multitude of federal agencies under numerous federal programs.

It also allows departments of motor vehicles to sell drivers information such as names, addressees, social security numbers, and photos to private third party entities.

This fact is often missed by the trusting public, and even by many so-called "privacy groups," because of the deceptive name given to the bill, "drivers privacy protection act."

A few "privacy groups" are even singing the praises of this "privacy destroying" ruling, having also been tricked by the name which includes the phrase "privacy protection."

In ruling that the DPPA was "constitutional," the Court reversed three lower court rulings from South Carolina, Alabama, and Colorado -- all three of which had ruled the DPPA was violated the Tenth Amendment (among other things).

Under the DPPA, the federal government will take full control over all state-held driver and motor vehicle records. The sole purpose of the Act was in fact to wrench away authority over these records from the states.

One provision in the DPPA permits states to disclose personal information from motor vehicle records for use in verifying information submitted to a business, to prevent fraud, or to pursue legal remedies where it is believed that inaccurate information was submitted to a business or agency.

Based upon this permissive clause, almost immediately after the misnamed "DPPA" was adopted, a company formed specifically to develop a huge database of driver records for use by retail outlets in verifying the identity of customers.

The company, Image Data LLC of Nashua, NH, began purchasing records from several states, including South Carolina, based solely upon the authority under the DPPA.

The company intended to install small "image monitors" at retail outlets (who purchased their service) which would display a customer's driver's license photo during transactions where identity needed to be confirmed.

The equipment would have allowed stores to "swipe" bar-coded licenses or magnetic-strip credit cards through a reader which would then retrieve the "verifying" photos and other data through phone wire connections to Image Data's database.

It was later learned that among the drivers information sold to Image Data included children's photos taken from state-issued identity cards.

In September of '99, the Washington Post reported that the Secret Service provided funding for the Image Data operation. As a consequence of public objections, and the fact that the provisional Act (the DPPA) which authorized the sale had been ruled unconstitutional by three courts, Image Data very reluctantly announced that it would suspend its purchase of license data.

As a result of the Supreme Court ruling on Wednesday upholding the DPPA, businesses can now begin to develop such databases as the one first undertaken by Image Data.

The DPPA requires disclosure of personal information "for use in connection with matters of motor vehicle or driver safety and theft, motor vehicle emissions, motor vehicle product alterations, recalls, or advisories, performance monitoring of motor vehicles and dealers by motor vehicle manufacturers, and removal of non-owner records from the original owner records of motor vehicle manufacturers to carry out the purposes of titles I and IV of the Anti Car Theft Act of 1992, the Automobile Information Disclosure Act, the Clean Air Act, and chapters 301, 305, and 321-331 of title 49." 18 U S C 2721(b).

The DPPA also permits DMVs to disclose personal information from motor vehicle records for use "by any government agency" or by "any private person or entity acting on behalf of a Federal, State or local agency in carrying out its functions." 18 USC 2721(b)(1) (1994 ed. and Supp. III).

The Act also allows States to divulge drivers' personal information for any state-authorized purpose relating to the operation of a motor vehicle or public safety, 2721(b)(14); for use in connection with car safety, prevention of car theft, and promotion of driver safety, 2721(b)(2); for use by a business to verify the accuracy of personal information submitted to that business and to prevent fraud or pursue legal remedies if the information that the individual submitted to the business is revealed to have been inaccurate, 2721(b)(3); in connection with court, agency, or self-regulatory body proceedings, 2721(b)(4); for research purposes so long as the information is not further disclosed or used to contact the individuals to whom the data pertain, 2721(b)(5); for use by insurers in connection with claims investigations, antifraud activities, rating or underwriting, 2721(b)(6); to notify vehicle owners that their vehicle has been towed or impounded, 2721(b)(7); for use by licensed private investigative agencies or security services for any purpose permitted by the DPPA, 18 U. S. C. 2721(b)(8); and in connection with private toll transportation services, 2721(b)(10).

---

Clinton announces "mug shot" database

http://www.networkusa.org/fingerprint/page1/fp-digital-mug-shot- photos.html

DoT Highway Safety Deskbook

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/enforce/deskbk.html

Secret Service aided license photo database

http://www.cnn.com/US/9902/18/license.photos/

U.S. Helped Fund License Photo Database

http://washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/business/daily/feb99/privacy18.htm

Driver's Privacy Protection Act of 1994 as codified

http://www.networkusa.org/fingerprint/page1b/fp-dmv-records-18-usc- 123.html

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

Social security is the bane of individual liberty. - SAM

-- Hokie (Hokie_@hotmail.com), January 18, 2000.

I work in direct marketing-Don't throw stones-and there is an easy way to stop "junk mail". Call the Direct Marketing Association in New York City and ask for the DMA preference service. Also, tell experian, euquifax, and trans-union that you want to be removed from their marketing database, and that you do not want any inquiry on your credit that is not initiated by you-this can be done. FWIW.

Remember, though, that you may have already won 10,000,000 dollars!

-- futureshock (gray@matter.com), January 18, 2000.

Thanks Hokie, much easier to read.

Although, I made the effort to discern it as best I could beforehand, thanks for paragraphs.

Futureshock; I wish there was a centralized database in which we could all have the option of being recognized or not, it just doesn't exist.

The data is being correlated in many different forms and way too fast with the tools available; to even begin to slow it down now. Things are being collecting on everything and anything, at an incredible rate.

The shame of it is, nobody seems to care. Talk about not recognizing the big picture, sheese.

Our future will definitely be interesting, to say the least.

-- Michael (michaelteever@buffalo.com), January 18, 2000.

What CHILLS my BONES on this letter is the marriage of driverID/credit data base. This is a step closer to a national smart- card id, which upon loss/failure may be marketed as an implant. This sounds kooky, but when you read the stuff on .mil's getting implants, and the irridium satellites, it gets spooky. I read some of these ID chips are only undetectable at ground levels deeper than 300 feet. ...heh, just imagine the IRS glitching you at past-due, and you gotta dig deeper than 300 for one of these satellites NOT to track your butt....we won't even talk about particle beams, heh.

-- Hokie (Hokie_@hotmail.com), January 18, 2000.