The conversation elsewhere is out of control...even "negative recognition" in addition to a National Biometric-ID. The fear is that its an "appearance measure." My response on another list was fairly long-winded, but it did include the following: (1) The pretexter. Mr. Terrorist -- he's a suspect or (hopes to be) a fugitive, or he wouldn't be pretexting an ID. (2) The patsy. Ann Murphy -- married and pregnant when her new husband tried to put her on a plane with 3 pounds of plastic explosive. She was recruited and set up over a year. (3) The inward spy. Colonel von Stauffenberg -- admitted to Hitler's Wolf Lair without question. (4) The priest. Father Terrorist -- he is who he is. The only thing he has to hide is his intent. In 2, 3, and 4 authentication is an exploit. If it leads to a false sense of security, it is an exploit. ''They'' will go for timing + circumstance + opportunity. (The focus has shifted away from airplanes.) Myself and several others have pointed out how this would agitate domestic dissident groups, further civil tension, and possibly provoke violence -- the terrorist objective straight out of "TERRORISM 101." I just haven't seen any compelling counter-terrorism studies FOCUSING on this (I'm looking, and I'm sure that I will...). Although document forgery is an immigration problem, it sounds like one that can be addressed at the border. While authentication is a first line defense, I question this measure in terms of "combating terrorism," and worry that it is over-rated. It's also something that goes with chokepoint-checkpoints. [*pause*...seen the latest ANSIR?] ~Aimee