The assurance that privacy is safe and sound is too consistently followed by the promise of a workable compromise between personal privacy and the 'legitimate needs of law enforcement.' I'm not a lawyer but I don't see any middle ground that accomodates both. Either the 5th ammendment stands or it falls. What exactly are they planning? They talk as if the groundwork has already been done and it's merely a matter of following through. Watch for some wierd stuff tied to a barley crop subsidy or an EPA appropriation. Are there other examples of this speech from overseas? Mike I can think of only one phrase suited to describe a state where the civil liberties are defined by the police agencies.