Thanks, that was my point as well, perhaps not as eloquently said. The question is as you responded to the various scenarios, do we want to take the risks or not? It is probable that any system designed to capture criminals will result in "false positives." Some folks use that percentage as a basis for saying that the process should be eliminated. The question for me is, what are the consequences of no system and do the adverse consequences of that outweigh the "bad" within a system that has false positives. Again, some people have zero tolerance for false positives, others have zero tolerance for a system that allows more criminal acts. Problem is, those who espouse trashing the system have few if any alternatives other than, "I'll take my chances." Fine, but some of us don't want to take that chance. I'd rather have a slightly flawed system where the legal process can work out the details of the flaws rather than no system at all that invites more hijackings. Especially since the terrorists have made it clear that their intent is to do more of the same.