http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/09/mandatory-e-verify-system-could-threaten-jobs-and-privacy.ars

Mandatory e-verify system could threaten jobs and privacy

...

Criticism intensified on Thursday when Chairman Smith introduced a new version of the legislation that removed a key privacy safeguard. Previous versions had required that the database only be used for checking employment eligibility. But the new version allows the database to be used much more widely. The Department of Homeland Security could make it available to anyone who is responsible for "granting access to, protecting, securing, operating, administering, or regulating part of the critical infrastructure."

...

Expanded uses

The updated e-verify legislation that Rep. Smith introduced on Thursday made an important change to the rules regarding who may use the system. Previous iterations of the e-verify legislation made it illegal to use the e-verify database for any purpose other than verifying employment eligibility. The latest bill makes e-verify an all-purpose database for protecting "critical infrastructure."

The Secretary of Homeland Security would be allowed to give "any person or entity responsible for granting access to, protecting, securing, operating, administering, or regulating part of the critical infrastructure" access to the database. Obviously, that covers a lot of people, from TSA agents to private firms operating power plants.

DH has attended his last NFL game. He will be writing to let them know that, but I doubt they'll care. I say 18 months before we're frisked to enter the grocery store. The US has simply gone insane.

Sooner or later, we'll just RFID everyone and then we won't need these searches because Fatherland Security will know who you are and where you've been.
Laugh now, while you still have a First Amendment. Remember, we used to have a Fourth Amendment.

Holy Moses is that a stupid policy.

One idiot brings a stun gun disguised as a phone and now every single person attending a game anywhere needs to be stopped and frisked before entering!?!

What happens when the sneaky stun gun guy decides to bring a bag? - Search the bags!!

Forcing tens of thousands of people to stand around for hours in the weather waiting to be frisked sounds like a great way to ensure that you get some tension going, maybe a few fights - the fights almost always happen outside of the stadium, not in the stands. Sounds like a perfect setting for a riot, doesn't it?

Can't we just ask the people who come up with this crap to leave the country. I'm serious. Something goes wrong and your first instinct is to impose a police state. Well I'm sorry but that means that you're not an American. So get the fuck out!

I'm disgusted at this gross overreach of government, but even moreso at its acceptance by the television generation. The hard truth is that this whole security circus is for naught. We haven't been hit hard by terrorists these past ten years, but not because of TSA, or football rapes, or any myriad other lame-brained interventions. We haven't been hit hard because of 1) few have earnestly tried, and 2) those that have have been intercepted by traditional intelligence techniques.

A reasonable level of security is not hard to achieve (and believe me, we aren't even close). We aren't even taking basic measures in many areas, yet in high profile sectors, like civilian air travel, we're way over the top with counter-productive measures. What this says to me is that none of this is about security... it's about control and conditioning. I oppose it with every fiber of my being.

It shouldn't amaze you that your article isn't accepted by the MSM, Amy. Their job is to support, not oppose the regime, as evidenced by their malicious, mendacious reporting for years now.

Better venues might be Truthdig, Truthout, their rightwing equivalents, etc. What you'll find, is that once it's gained traction, the MSM will put out stuff to counter or respond to it, without citing or publishing it. The MSM is utterly complicit.

I don't know the rightwing sites to send you to, because I'm essentially a Liberal (albeit a mean one!). I've lived my life with a Democratic bent, but the events of the past decade or two have sent me wandering... and learning. I now call myself a left-wing libertarian.

If you just want to get it out there, without remuneration, we can hit it hard and wide... that part is easy. People should be paid well for their work... I agree with that whole-heartedly, but in these times for journalism, I'm afraid that those who get the most important readership aren't paid well, or even at all.

"What's kind of amazing to me is that my op-ed on the TSA thing has been turned down now by the NYT, CNN, and the LA Times..."

You're a damn fool for thinking any of those venues would publish your op-ed. They've made their support for the TSA, and their hostility to anyone protesting it, crystal-clear in editorials like this one from the LA Times, "Shut Up And Be Scanned" (yes, that's really the title):

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/nov/17/opinion/la-ed-security-20101117

I think it stands to reason that editors who write crap like that are not going to accept op-eds like yours.

"Getting advice from friends on where to place it"

I noticed the Colorado Springs Independent (which carries your column) ran this supportive piece on you right after the story hit Techdirt:

http://www.csindy.com/IndyBlog/archives/2011/09/06/tsa-agent-threatens-advice-goddess-over-assault-claim

I know it's a tiny paper, but if there are other papers out there who've covered your story and haven't taken an editorial stance hostile to TSA protestors, you should have a good chance with them. Especially if they carry your column.

Have you tried USA Today? They carry lots of For/Against opinion pieces. Wherever you get it published, I'll bet Instapundit will link to it.

I'm confused.

I get that DHS policy and even it's very existence is an over reach of government, and ought to be fought on every encounter and abolished, based on the premise of individual liberty.

But isn't the NFL (quasi)private? Travel is one thing and football another. If a private entity wants to add a stipulation (that you be searched) before you gain entry to their entertainment venue, I just don't see the problem. As far as I understand this is the NFL making their own rules of entry for enjoyment of their own product. It seems all private to me, not driven by a government mandate. Based on that interpretation, I don't see what's wrong. They can do what they want and if you don't like it don't go and spend money at their games.

Travel is different and I'm no expert on it but I'm much more agreeable to the notion that the two things that have made people safer are cockpit barriers and passenger awareness that they are their own source of protection and government security theater is a charade.

Perhaps I'm conflating something? Air travel is subject to federal safety regulations, which I can understand but don't necessarily agree with. NFL is private (sort of) and in my opinion should be allowed to excercise whatever security exercises they want. They will be held accountable by the fans spending. They will get market feedback.

I just don't see the connect between priming by the government violations of ones rights to a private entity having their own security standards. I'm curious, should the NFL not be allowed to have any security? Only non-invasive searches? I think they should be able to do whatever they think is best so long as they get permission of whomever they decide to vet. Voluntary transaction.

With DVRs and game packages, fans can now watch any game at nearly any time; with big-screen HDTVs, games on TV can look better than do in person. There's less and less reason for people to attend games. It looks like the NFL has seen the attendance-free future, and decided to hasten it.

But isn't the NFL (quasi)private?

Yes it is, but so long as multi millon dollar stadiums are built at tax expense for a monoply turning a profut, as far as I am concernd statiums are public property not private

"What's disturbing is the way the TSA is setting an example for business."

And vice-versa. "See? They'll shut up and take it from private companies, too. We'll be able to get away with so much more..."

So now they'll reinforce each other, and blur the line between private action and state force even more than it already has been. (Then again, tax dollars have been building "private" enterprises like stadiums forever, so the line has long since been not merely blurred in corporatist America, but obliterated.)

My personal experience has been that almost everyone believes as Barney Frank does, that "government is what we choose to do together." So sure, why not, let's have the same bend-over-and-take-it behaviors in both private and government action, because any time any of us do anything together, we're in the realm of government so there's really no such thing as private action anyway.

Think about that the next time you have sex. Me? I'm going to masturbate from now on.

@Christopher: Pshaw! Soon they'll be coming to your house to search you before you watch the game.

Creepy. A little ironic, but mostly way, way creepy.

(BTW, I think the ugliest thing about domestic violence isn't that it's "hidden", it's that those people tend to find each other.)

Also-- Why is Amnesty International talking about that? It may be an entirely worthwhile cause... But I would expect the American Lung Association to be championing new glaucoma treatments, either.

Again, see also for the ironic part.

Sorry for the irony quotes on "hidden"... I hate when other people do that.

Again, see also for the ironic part.

Interesting. I was recently talking with a business school professor who researches volunteerism and charitable giving. He often conducts research using records from big charities, few of which are willing to be identified in his publications. Seems they're not keen on making it known how hard they work to extract dollars out of donors.

> Interesting.

Man, who ARE you? Have we met?

I'm not sure if this is the type of venue you are looking for, but what about Parade magazine? It has a broad distribution with Sunday newspapers so your article/OP-ed has the chance to be seen by many eyeballs.

I live in SF where Parade comes with the Chronicle. I usually read it first since the Sunday paper here (is lame) is but a shadow of its former self.

Crid, think VAWA.

As Amy and so many point out, what is going on, whether explicitly acknowledged or not, is training.

We grew up in an absurd age, where we made fun of "Papers, please". Our kids have it lucky and will not be so burdened with the mental gymnastics we had to use to hold such perverse thoughts.

Should have written "doubleplusungood thoughts".

(Band name?)
(Blog name?)
(Kid's name?)

Man, who ARE you? Have we met?

I don't think we've met outside this blog. As far as who I am - I'm just a regular guy, hopefully a good one. Pushing 40, married, first kid due any day now, VP for an internet company, overeducated, have a geeky interest in all sorts of things.

I got patted down to go into Dodger Stadium last year, even before the poor guy was attacked this year.

Though my penis was raped, I survived, and even enjoyed the game. Sort of...the Dodgers are poorly managed.

BOTU, you missed your calling! You would have made a great Soviet prole! Heck, they probably would have promoted you to Political Operative, and you could have gone around checking on the political beliefs of your peers, making sure that they conform to the Soviet paradigm.

For your efforts, you would have gotten about $20 a month, and a kick in the ass. I won't give you $20, but I'll give you the rest!

Here's a link to Operation GrabAss, a site that lists links to stories about TSA abuses.

http://www.reddit.com/r/OperationGrabAss/?count=26&before=t3_kaxd0

Amy, did you try the WSJ?