anonplz,

I've stressed the point six ways from Sunday:

I would _voluntarily_ do what I mentioned in previous posts b/c I can and want to. It's just the extent of what I would be willling to do for a proposed TTP.

If others choose not to get a passport, fine. If others choose not to get a driver's license or their state's ID card, that is certainly their perogative. And, frankly, fingerprinting is more common than you might think. It's required for anyone working at a bank (teller or CEO, regardless), when taking the Bar exam (and LSAT for that matter ) and for hundreds of other reasons. You'd be surpised in how many contexts it's required.

I'm under no illusions any more about my privacy so I guess that's why I have no qualms about applying for TTP status despite the fact that it should be necessary in the first place.

(Going a little OMNI here ...) As many on FT know, I worked for a newspaper for over 16 years, until just last May. You'd be amazed at how much info is available on y'alls. We subscribed to DMV databases, property tax databases, criminal records databases, SSI info, telephone data (incl. supposedly unlisted numbers), you name it. And it's not terribly expensive to acquire this data. And it was available to _anyone_ in our newsroom as part of the utility menu under the PC's START menu, copyaide to Executive editor.

Chilling, eh? I could found out volumes about a prospective date if had wanted to. (Never did, BTW, as I felt it was not ethical to do so for non-news purposes.)

</omni>

It's not so much that I'm angry any more; I'm galvanized to make change. As I stated before, I would never deem it appropriate to vent my anger at the person doing the wanding, though you can bet my displeasure is broadcast rather lucidly by my body langauge and facial expression.