I up-voted you because it's a legitimate reaction. And it gives me the opportunity to point out why your question is flawed.
The whole issue is the burden of proof. Here in the USA, the whole government is supposed to be about the people: "government of the people, by the people, and for the people". We built this country, and vested the Federal Government with power, in order to guarantee our freedoms.
Thus, there is absolutely no burden on us, the people, to prove or even explain why the government's bumbling encroachments are wrong. It's the other way around.
It's entirely the job of the government to prove that any encroachment on our freedom is both necessary and effective. To date, they have only asserted that this is necessary without any supporting logic or evidence. And to the best of my knowledge, they haven't even tried to make the argument that it's effective.
And absent any material demonstration of those things from the government, freedom should win by default.
Adding to that, we know that different models for security may very well work better than what we've got. See this article about Israel's Ben Gurion International Airport: http://forward.com/articles/122781/
Mind you, one definitely shouldn't argue from this that adopting Israel's airport security system would be a good idea for the USA (with, among other things, its much larger threatened area), as the article mentions. But it's important to note it, because it shows that there are effective options for securing air travel that don't cause such a devastating invasion of privacy and/or provoke molestation accusations.
The whole issue is the burden of proof. Here in the USA, the whole government is supposed to be about the people: "government of the people, by the people, and for the people". We built this country, and vested the Federal Government with power, in order to guarantee our freedoms.
Thus, there is absolutely no burden on us, the people, to prove or even explain why the government's bumbling encroachments are wrong. It's the other way around.
It's entirely the job of the government to prove that any encroachment on our freedom is both necessary and effective. To date, they have only asserted that this is necessary without any supporting logic or evidence. And to the best of my knowledge, they haven't even tried to make the argument that it's effective.
And absent any material demonstration of those things from the government, freedom should win by default.