I'm not the one at issue.
I asked you to cite a case where the government actually kept their promises about data protection.
Since you can't, because there isn't such a case, why should the government be trusted with one more bit of information than it already has?
The answer, of course, is that it shouldn't.
Why is that so hard for you to understand?
The dang bill isn't for gathering more information on Americans.
Why is that so hard for you to grasp. Read the Bill.
Staying with your relevence to the thread.
How many times has the Phil not seen his shadow on Ground Hog day?