Bruce Schneier <3's TSA

Yesterday, Bruce Schneier wrote a blog post about abolishing the Department of Homeland Security. It was based, in large part, on a CATO report calling for the same citing that

DHS has too many subdivisions in too many disparate fields to operate effectively. Agencies with responsibilities for counterfeiting investigations, border security, disaster preparedness, federal law enforcement training, biological warfare defense, and computer incident response find themselves under the same cabinet official. This arrangement has not enhanced the government's competence. Americans are not safer because the head of DHS is simultaneously responsible for airport security and governmental efforts to counter potential flu epidemics.

Schneier agrees, citing his own writing from 2003:

Our nation may actually be less secure if the Department of Homeland Security eventually takes over the responsibilities of existing agencies. [...] Security is the responsibility of everyone in government. We won't defeat terrorism by finding a single thing that works all the time. We'll defeat terrorism when every little thing works in its own way, and together provides an immune system for our society. Unless the DHS distributes security responsibility even as it centralizes coordination, it won't improve our nation's security.

But Schneier takes issue with CATO's suggestion, later in the above linked report, that the TSA should abolished. Instead, he believes

abolishing the TSA isn't a good idea. Airport security should be rolled back to pre-9/11 levels, but someone is going to have to be in charge of it. Putting the airlines in charge of it doesn't make sense; their incentives are going to be passenger service rather than security. Some government agency either has to hire the screeners and staff the checkpoints, or make and enforce rules for contractor-staffed checkpoints to follow.

It would be very easy, at this point, to attack Schneier on the basis that the TSA is a colossal failure. However, that TSA is not a failure of epic proportions is not what he is arguing. In fact, Schneier himself is the progenitor of the idea that exactly "two things have made flying safer: the reinforcement of cockpit doors, and the fact that passengers know now to resist hijackers". Furthermore, just this week, he penned an article calling the TSA irrelevant. So, let's look at exactly what he did say: that airline security should return to pre-9/11 levels with the government being in charge of it, either directly (government-hired goons staffing the checkpoints) or indirectly (private contractors acting under government regulation). If we hearken back to the pre-9/11 days, we find that his statement is redundant. Prior to 9/11, the government via the FAA was in charge of airline security, and what Schneier is suggesting is exactly how we arrived -- ignoring the reason(s) for the attacks themselves -- at 9/11 in the first place.

Before addressing Schneier's claim that putting the airlines in charge of airport security doesn't make sense, let's start with why his own solution doesn't make sense. First, there is the empirical evidence. As I just pointed out, 9/11 happened on the government's watch. While I agree that airline security should be rolled back to pre-9/11 levels, putting/leaving the government in charge of it is ludicrous, and the reason for that is that the government's interests do not align with that of the traveling public. Ostensibly, both care about flight safety. But in reality, as Schneier himself points out relentlessly, the TSA fails to provide this on any level. Just last month, a Vanity Fair writer explained how Schneier helped him circumvent TSA security to meet Schneier at the gate when his flight arrived. Then there's my own personal experience: after leaving the screening area (without being screened), the TSA demanded that I return because they feared that I may have an explosive device on my person. Why would they usher me back to the most crowed area of the airport if they feared that I had explosives? In reality, the government's interest(s) lie in an ever increasing role in security. This provides, not an actual increase in security, but an ever increasing ability to funnel money to favored contractors and further ratchet up the police state apparatus for the same reason.

The other reason that having the government in charge of airline security doesn't make sense is the same reason that letting the airlines manage their own security does: the profit and loss test. The basic idea is that when a business produces a product that consumers want at a cost that is less than what consumers are willing to pay, then the business profits. If any of these conditions are not met, the business suffers a loss. If the business does not change, then it goes out of business, government intervention notwithstanding.

Let's apply this test to the government's handling of airline security. It is producing a product that consumers want, namely, security. It is producing it at a cost of approximately $8.8 billion per year according to the federal government's 2011 budget. But this is where the profit and loss test ends for the TSA or any government entity. The profit and loss test requires that consumers of a product voluntarily pay or not pay for it. The government is funded via compulsory taxation. Therefore, the government need not concern itself with whether or not it is producing a product that people want or, more importantly, in a way that they want. That the government acts in exactly this way is borne out by reality. The TSA's budget during its first full year of funding in 2003 was $4.8 billion. It's current budget, only 8 years on, is a near 100% increase from that initial budget. This comes despite repeated TSA bungles including sleeping on the job, physically harassing passengers, allowing criminal activity to bypass security, stealing from passengers... the list goes on and on. If the TSA was a private corporation, consumers would have put it out of business almost 10 years ago. Instead, its costs are higher than ever and rising with no end in sight. In fact, the TSA's only measurable goal is total security, something that requires an absolute police state. Despite the desire on the part of the traveling public for total security, I'd wager that none would actually want to pay for it in terms of money or liberty required to implement said police state.

Now we can return to Schneier's claim that putting airline security in the hands of the airlines makes no sense. He believes this because he thinks that the airlines' focus will be on passenger service instead of security. Somebody didn't think through his rationale, completely. Tsk, tsk. Security is part and parcel of the service provided by the airlines. No passenger is going to be concerned about a glass of soda and a bag of peanuts or that he didn't get a blanket and a fluffy pillow if his plane is commandeered or blown up by a terrorist. Not only that, but the loss of a plane costs an airline hugely. There is of course the capital loss of the plane and the fuel, but more than that, if the airline wants to stay in business it's not only going to have to beef up its security, but it is going to have to figure out how to prove to passengers that it had changed its ways so that they'd be willing to fly again. We see then, that the airlines' interests, unlike the government's, align perfectly with the traveling public. In addition, airlines carry insurance for their operations. This means that airlines want their operations to be safe and secure because they don't want their premiums to rise in the event of an accident, and the airlines' insurance companies have every incentive to pressure the airlines to keep their operations safe and secure lest the insurance company have to pay out a multi-million, possibly billion, dollar claim.

"We can't trust the airlines", I hear you scream. "They're greedy capitalists!" Indeed they are, and that's exactly why the system would work. The airlines, unlike the government, cannot just take consumers' money to fund their operations. They must induce consumers to voluntarily give money to them. Thus, the airlines are subject to the profit and loss test described earlier. If the airlines provide too little security, passengers won't be willing to fly. The airlines will have saved some money by skimping on security, but the lack of income will ultimately result in losses. If they provide too much security, either the costs will drive ticket prices to a level that consumers are unwilling to pay, or consumers will find alternate means of travel because they find the security required by the airlines too onerous. In either event, the airlines will again find themselves losing money. In order to make money, the airlines will have to provide enough security to satisfy their passengers' desire for safety and their insurance companies' risk tolerance while not imposing so much security that passengers seek other airlines or other modes of travel entirely to avoid the costs and hassles.

Astonishingly, a self-correcting and self-policing system like this hasn't taken hold. Part of the reason for this is human nature. Humans have demonstrated a surprising inability to correlate events with the likelihood of their occurrence. For example, very few people are concerned about choking to death on their own vomit. However, it turns out that one is 9 times more likely to die by this method than via an act of terrorism. This is a topic that Bruce Schneier has also written about repeatedly. Because of this, people always demand ever more security in the event of some kind of accident or attack. Normally, the costs of these demands would temper them somewhat, but this doesn't happen because of government involvement. This is the other reason that a free market system has not taken hold: the government provides moral hazard. The airlines prefer that the government be involved because by using government provided security and/or standards, responsibility for security failures falls on the government, not the airlines. When something tragic occurs, the airlines can point to the government as the failure. Insurance companies are likewise not terribly worried about having to pay airline claims because the government has proven willing to bail them out. Even consumers are unwitting accomplices in this system because the costs of security have been separated from the cost of a ticket. Instead, these costs are (or would normally be) imposed as taxes, but even if one went looking for them, they would be difficult to find as the government has taken to inflating the currency in order to finance its operations. The increased costs of security are found in the rising prices of everyday items like milk, rent, electricity, and gasoline.

The government's involvement in airline security is not only an abject failure but an impediment to allowing a free(d) market to discover what the people really want when it comes to airline security. Bruce Schneier is a smart guy, and he's one of the TSA's harshest critics. He's written extensively about security and the trade-offs made in its name; he's no stranger to economics, especially when it comes to security. In light of this, I can only conclude from his desire to keep the government involved in airline security that he secretly loves the TSA.

Texas folds 'em

Last month, during the big dust-up about the anti-TSA bill in Texas that would have made TSA groping illegal, I wrote up a quick piece about the bill. In that post, I said this:

I didn't think the bill would ever become law, but I didn't think it would be because the Texas legislature would roll over at the first hint of resistance from the federal government.

Yesterday, it died for reasons that I did expect. Stop Austin Scanners, again, has the story:

This morning, HB 41/SB 29 died by parliamentary procedure, by failing to get sufficient votes to suspend the Texas Constitution to allow 2nd and 3rd readings on the same day.

[...] The Texas Constitution prohibits 2nd and 3rd readings on the same day unless 4/5th of the 150 member body consents to suspend the Constitution to pass the bill.

This would  not have happened if Governor Rick Perry had not waited to call the bill before the 11th hour, and House Speaker Joe Straus (both Republicans) not violated House rules by not bringing HB 41 for its first vote last Friday, June 24th after a quorum had been established and no other business but HB 41 was scheduled.  Speaker Straus later called HB 41 nothing more than a “publicity stunt” and the refused to acknowledge the Senate messenger yesterday.

Had Straus allowed the messenger deliver SB 29 at the time it was presented, the bill’s 2nd reading could have been completed yesterday, leaving open today for a constitutionally proper 3rd reading.  Instead, in a politically vulgar move, the Speaker manipulated the proceedings to force Representative Simpson to subvert the constitution he most fervently seeks to uphold by calling for its suspension to achieve final passage of SB 29.

Liberty died, not by force, but quietly choked out by political chicanery. Of the people, by the people, and for the people, indeed.

Texas tries again

Says Kathryn Muratore:

This is very good news, indeed. Texas State Rep David Simpson introduced two bills to the legislative session this year[.] In a wild turn of events, the legislative session was extended by Gov Rick Perry for a month to finish work on other legislation, and it was left to his sole discretion to decide what to add to the agenda. With a little over a week left in the extended session — and after an about-face by Lt Gov David Dewhurst, a nationwide campaign, and recent publicity of state legislators being violated by the TSA — the [anti-groping] bill is back on the agenda.

From Star-Telegram article:

Some state officials and lawmakers have offered anecdotes to illustrate what they say is inappropriate or invasive behavior by TSA inspectors.

State Rep. Barbara Nash, R-Arlington, said she has thought several times that TSA inspectors went too far in security patdowns. Recently, she said, a female inspector felt "all the way up" the outside of her dress, in back and front.

"It made me angry. ... it was not something I would want to happen to someone else," Nash said.

At the other end of the political spectrum, state Rep. Lon Burnam, D-Fort Worth, one of the most liberal members of the House, was also critical of TSA procedures.

"I definitely think the way TSA is implementing their responsibilities is invasive of people's privacy," he said.

It would seem the bill's appeal crosses political lines, though, it would seem politics will still play a role as the article goes on to say:

Burnam supported the legislation in the regular session but said he was uncertain whether he will remain a supporter, saying he was "put off" by Perry's decision to include it in the special session.

"This whole special session is almost disgusting," Burnam said. "It's all about his candidacy for the presidency. It's not about what's good for Texas."

Not what's good for Texas? "Put off" by Perry's decision? Hey Burnam, how about you consider "taking one for the team", here. Instead of trying to screw Perry by voting against this legislation (which you actually support), how about you try to avoid screwing the people that you supposedly serve by protecting their liberty?

The legislation has until next Wednesday (June 29) to pass. Follow the fight here.

Texas capitulates

Lots of people, at various times recently, have pointed me at Texas HB 1937. This bill would have made the TSA's groping procedures illegal, at least in Texas. I didn't think the bill would ever become law, but I didn't think it would be because the Texas legislature would roll over at the first hint of resistance from the federal government.

"If HR [sic] 1937 were enacted, the federal government would likely seek an emergency stay of the statute," the letter read, on U.S. Department of Justice, Western District of Texas, stationery. "Unless or until such a stay were granted, TSA would likely be required to cancel any flight or series of flights for which it could not ensure the safety of passengers and crew.

stopaustinscanners.org sees the situation this way:

Let’s be absolutely clear here: the Federal Government just threatened to make Texas a no-fly zone if they can’t sexually assault us.

Nevertheless, the legislature folded:

Senate sponsor Dan Patrick (R-Houston) pulled down HB 1937. But he didn't pull it until after some firey rhetoric about the principles of the bill, as well as allegations that TSA representatives were "lobbying" the Texas Senate today. "I will pull HB 1937 down, but I will stand for Liberty in the state of Texas," Patrick said.

Classic political move: "I was for liberty before I was against it, but I'm still for it." Somebody should explain to Senator Patrick that you can't kill this bill and simultaneously claim to stand for liberty. The two are mutually exclusive. Jackass.

Ames and Levine smear again

Mark Ames and Yasha Levine are at it again. You may not know who these people are. I didn't before last November, and I hadn't heard of them since until Mr. Ames tried to contact me last night and his and Mr. Levine's article was published this morning. Let me refresh your memory. Last November, when I had my run-in with the TSA, these two "reporters" wrote an article trying to connect me and other like-minded individuals with a vast right-wing conspiracy funded by the billionaire Koch brothers. I never responded to it because it was so quickly derided as a fact-free smear by all sorts of media outlets, most notably Glenn Greenwald.

It seems to be a consensus even among liberal, Nation-friendly journalists that the attack on Tyner was not merely misguided, but odious, as all such journalists who commented (at least that I know of) condemned it, often in terms at least as harsh as the ones I used.  In addition to their own Nation colleague Jeremy Scahill (who denounced it as a "shameful smear"), Mother Jones' News Editor Daniel Schulman wrote:  "This Nation story is journalistic malpractice of the worst kind"; The American Prospect's Scott Lemieux, on his blog, called it "Liberal McCarthyism" and an "embarrassment"; and the usually rhetorically restrained Ezra Klein condemned it as a "hit piece" which I had "rightfully hammered."

The Nation article utterly failed to connect me to anyone on the right or any sort of activities of an "activist" nature (other than possibly my blog). Fast forward to yesterday. In keeping with his journalistic standards, Mr. Ames waited until 8:30pm EDT to contact me for a comment on his story. He tried to goad me into calling him back telling me that he was on a deadline for that evening and by referencing a blog post about the TSA that I admitted to deleting saying that it contradicted everything that I said during my interviews following my TSA encounter in San Diego. First, who waits until 8:30pm to get a comment for a story that is going to run the following morning? It was clear to me that Mr. Ames already had his story and there was nothing that I could have said that would have made a bit of difference, and that brings me to my second question. What made Mr. Ames think that I would talk to him? It's clear from the content of his article that it's a good thing that I didn't.

The thrust of the current article is that all of the anti-TSA "hysteria" is an attempt to block the TSA from unionizing. I'll come back to that charge, shortly. The article spends only a few sentences talking about me, but I'd like to address them:

The anti-TSA campaign was at its media-hysteria peak in the weeks after the Republican election sweep, spurred on by last year’s hero, John Tyner, who refused a pat-down, telling TSA agents, “You touch my junk and I'm going to have you arrested.” Tyner disappeared from the scene after he apologized on his blog, and admitted that he didn't tell the whole story and had actively tried to erase it (Tyner did not return our call or answer our message requesting comment).*

This is all true, such as it is. The context if the story would lead the reader to believe that I had concocted the entire incident either for personal gain, or as the writers suggest, to prevent unionization of the TSA (again, I'll get to the anti-union charge). Note the asterisk at the end of the paragraph. It leads to the end of the article where this final note appears:

*“To those of you who feel duped, I apologize”—so writes John Tyner in a contrite blog post headlined “The ‘Whole’ Truth”  dated November 30, 2010. A week earlier, he was the biggest media sensation in America, freeing us from state tyranny; by the time he apologized to America, America had already lost interest and moved on.

Again, true. Mr. Ames shows his journalistic integrity, adding a final, snarky smear to his article but leaves out the immediately following sentences from my blog post, from which he quotes, because they completely contradict his premise. Here they are:

There is no reason to feel that way, though. I stand by my assertion that the encounter was not planned or staged. I stand by my account of the events that occurred at San Diego airport. And I stand by everything that I have said and written since the event. I stood up to what I saw as an affront to everyone's 4th amendment protections and dignity, and that has started a real conversation about how much liberty we're willing to give up in the name of feeling safe. Let's not lose sight of what's really important, here.

But we have lost sight. In fact, in my previous post, on April 14th, I wrote about this very idea. The point of that post was that fear of terrorism has caused us to overlook TSA misbehaviors including stealing from passengers, failing to prevent terrorist attacks/attempts, and abridging civil liberties. Mr. Ames apparently isn't concerned about the TSA's incompetence or its "Gestapo" tactics. No, he only wants them to be unionized; personal property, safety, and civil liberties be damned.

So, what about the charge that I'm part of this vast right-wing conspiracy? Much like his last attempt to associate me with the TEA party (of whom I've been critical), the Koch brothers (if only I could get them to send me some of their billions), or any other right-wing entity, Mr. Ames presented no evidence to support his charge: absolutely none. Here's where Ames' and Levine's journalistic standards really shine. Here is a blog post of mine from October of last year, previous to any of these events, where I stated that I don't vote. (I did vote from approximately 2004 to 2008. I registered as a "decline to state" voter, California's equivalent of non-partisan.) Here's a blog post from February of this year where I argue that democracy is a tool by which the majority can and does oppress minorities (note the specific mentions of drug legalization and gay marriage, some issues the "right" is very against). Good work tying me to right-wing ideologues, guys.

And finally, what about the charge that my encounter was rigged to prevent TSA unionization? Again Ames and Levine are wildly off-base. Here's a blog post of mine from February of this year in which I argue that preventing unions is illegal under the First Amendment. I clarified my position in response to a commenter to this post. I had suggested that the proper remedy was for the government to fire workers who wanted to unionize, not restrict their civil liberties. The commenter responded that firing workers would also be a violation of First Amendment protections because it was a different method of "breaking the union". I responded:

Firing workers does not violate the workers' freedom of association. The first amendment protects the right to freely associate. Nothing grants a person the *right* to be hired/employed by another.

Employers want to pay as little as possible; employees want to be paid as much as possible. Let them sit down and negotiate. If they can't reach an agreement, then they don't contract with each other. End of story.

Typically, in a (non-union) negotiation, the employer has more power because the prospective worker needs the job more than the employer needs the *particular* employee. Unions are an attempt to deal with this by predicating a significant number of jobs on any particular member's job. So, employees [sic] fired union workers to try to break the unions, and then the government made it illegal to fire workers because they are in a union, a clear violation of the employers' property rights.

Now the government is suffering the blowback of its own policy. It can't fire the workers because of the Wagner Act, but to try to regulate them is a violation of the first amendment. It's such delicious irony.

For those of you who missed it, I believe the Wagner Act to be unconstitutional for the same reasons that I believe union regulation to be so: it violates the freedom of association. My own writing, from months ago, again contradicts Ames' and Levine's "reporting". Good work tying me to anti-union factions of the right-wing, guys.

Ames' and Levine's assertion that my encounter with the TSA was a stunt is based on my own "admission" which, as it turns out, is an unequivocal denial that it was anything other than a stand against an infringement of civil liberties. Their attempt to tie me to right-wing entities is based on... well... nothing. It is contradicted by my numerous writings critical of any number of things that the right wing does. And finally, the implication that I'm anti-union is again contradicted by my own writing. I hesitate to call Ames and Levine hacks. Arguments should be about issues, not the people promoting them. Ames and Levine have twice now, though, smeared me in clear contradiction of the facts, in an attempt to make their case. It's really a wonder to me that anyone continues to print what they write.

An ounce of prevention

I don't like the TSA. I think what it does is an affront to liberty, to moral sensibilities, and certainly to the Constitution that supposedly defines U.S. federal power. That is not to say that I oppose transportation security; I just happen believe that the damage done by the TSA to the aforementioned list of things far outweighs whatever benefit it might be providing. As such, I would characterize it as useless. That much is probably obvious to anyone reading this, either because you've read my other writings or because you're aware of my run-in with the TSA. What is probably unknown to most is that my encounter with the TSA has turned me off to reading about it and, even more so, to writing about it. Being a bit of a news junkie, I tend to remain "aware" of most major occurrences involving the TSA, but I don't, as I imagine most people believe, go out of my way to keep up on every little detail concerning it. In fact, I tend to ignore most of the stories I see about the TSA because I get a very "resistance is futile" feeling whenever I do.

Part of the this feeling comes simply from the fact that no matter what the TSA does, no matter how badly it screws up, the (government) solution has been and will always be to throw more money at the problem. Why people accept this situation is completely incomprehensible to me. Just from a purely economic perspective, it's preposterous. The TSA is a monopoly, and its parent, the federal government, openly and actively uses its monopoly position and power to not only prevent but prohibit competition. This is something that that same federal government makes illegal in the private sector. Moreover, the TSA continues to fail to carry out its own mission statement in which it claims that it "protects the Nation’s transportation systems ...". The TSA has racked up a number of high profile failures on this front including the shoe bomber, the underwear bomber, the loaded gun that cleared screening, and the failures of its own internal tests. The TSA can't even design tests for itself that it can pass (even after the 4th or 5th try depending on which story you read). If the TSA was a private company, it's stock would be worthless, and it would be out of business.

But the continued influx of money, increase even, allows the TSA to continue to fail to uphold the second half of its mission statement as well: "... to ensure freedom of movement for people and commerce". The TSA's website expands on this principle stating that it is composed of "people who conduct ourselves [sic] in an honest, trustworthy and ethical manner at all times". This stands in sharp contrast with reality.

Freedom? I certainly wasn't "free" to move about the country, no pun intended. My "freedom of movement" was conditioned on being groped by a thug in a government-issued costume (h/t William Grigg for that phrase; he likes to call them tax-feeders instead of thugs). It's very fitting that the very first definition of freedom is "the state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint" because that is exactly the opposite of what the TSA offers. And what happened to me is, by no means, an isolated incident. The TSA recently went so far as to screen passengers (read: violate their freedom) after they had disembarked from an Amtrak train in Savannah. TSA's "Blogger Bob" tried to explain this away as a Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response (VIPR) operation but then, at the end of the explanation, says that "this particular VIPR operation should have ended by the time these folks were coming through the station". Not only does the TSA's right hand not know what the left is doing, but its explanation that "disembarking passengers did not need to enter the station" and therefore willfully submitted themselves to the search is at odds with a first-hand account stating that "[T]here were about 14 agents pulling people inside the building and coralling [sic] everyone in a roped area".

Honest and trustworthy? Ethical? Finding stories about the TSA stealing from passengers is not a difficult task. A quick search turned up this blog post on the TSA's website in which the TSA talks about the theft for which it is responsible. That post is from early 2008. In late 2008, TSA screener Pythias Brown was arrested after "appropriating" over $200,000 from airline passengers. Long aware of its problems, the TSA has yet to do anything about them. Theft is still a problem for the TSA, but it's not just at the lowest levels as even managers have been found to be accepting "kickbacks" in return for "looking the other way". The TSA has also become very adept at lying to the traveling public as one commenter at the TSA's blog points out. In November of last year, the TSA said that those under 12 years of age would receive a modified pat-down when extra screening was required. Today, the TSA said that the pat down it gave to a 6 year old, in which the agent used the front of her hands for the majority of the pat down and even put her hands inside the child's waistband and shirt collar, is standard operating procedure just like for those over 12. And, of course, there's still the "debate" about exactly how much radiation you get from the TSA's AIT machines and whether or not they can store pictures.

Yet, the TSA remains in business, which brings me to the other reason that I don't typically follow stories about the TSA. Initially, the response to my encounter was very positive (for/to me and the cause of liberty). But as my story reached more and more people, I was subjected to very visceral reactions to what had happened. Many called me an attention-whore, claiming that the whole thing was set up. Some suggested that instead of blaming the government for trying to feel me up, I should blame the terrorists who made the whole thing necessary. But the majority, in various colorful ways, simply said that it was this way or the highway. That is, get felt up or get blown up, and this is the reason that I don't like hearing about the TSA. People are so afraid that they accept the TSA as a given. It makes me angry to read stories or responses along these lines knowing that no amount of rational discussion can be had about what the TSA does (or doesn't do) because the thinking behind those stories and responses is based on fear. No rational or logical discussion can be had with someone who is arguing from a place of fear.

It's a funny thing, emotion. In spite of seemingly infinite documentation of TSA abuses and screw-ups; in spite of the evidence that one is more likely to die in a car on the way to the airport than on the plane or that the odds of getting a fatal cancer from one of the TSA's AIT machines is roughly equivalent to a terrorist attack on a plane, we continue to allow the TSA to go on about its business in the name of "prevention". In fact, I would argue that more liberties are lost (or given up) in the name of prevention of some "terrible" event than any other cause. Guns are taken away and demonized to prevent crime. Gay marriage is outlawed lest it lead to the decay of society. Drugs are prohibited on the grounds that people might overdose and hurt themselves. Gambling is made illegal because people might overindulge and lose their money. Parents aren't allowed to pack their children's lunches because they may not be healthy "enough". Privacy and due process are lost in the name of preventing terrorism. The list goes on and on.

What happens when the prevention, the supposed "cure", becomes worse than the disease, though? Statistics show that guns save more lives than they take. Drug policy actually leads to poor quality drugs and criminal violence. Our government carries out due process free assassinations, and when we find out about it we only dare to question the secrecy of the operation not the legitimacy of the killing. Most damning of all, though, is the article that I found at the end of a link embedded in the story about the 6 year old girl that was patted down this week. TIME asked a child psychologist to explain how to make TSA pat-downs less traumatic for children. What is wrong with us when we're so afraid of our own shadows that we're willing to let government goons touch our children? Have we really come (read: regressed) so far? We're willing to accept the (false) choice: see our children naked or touch them all over. I really hate to play the "think of the children" card here as it is an appeal to emotion and not rationality, but I think it is in order. We've regressed so far that we're even once again willing to accept the "following orders" defense. Says a TSO:

I come to work to do my job. It is not up to me to decide policy, it is up to me to carry out my duties as dictated by the Transportation Security Administration. People fail to understand that neither of us are happy about the intrusive pat down I am carrying out. I am polite, I am professional [...]

And we eat it up. There was no end to the number of people who told me that I was a jerk during my encounter and that the TSO was very professional. I can only assume that the logic, if there is any, behind such an argument is that we should willingly give up our liberty if the government simply asks nicely enough.

And liberty is exactly what this should all be about. Our federal government was instituted to protect our liberty, to "prevent" infringements of it. But "infringe" is exactly what it does. Each of those preventions I mentioned is, in reality, an infringement of liberty. For example, gun ownership is not an aggressive act against another. Gay couples don't infringe anyone's liberty by loving each other, nor does a drug user in his use of drugs. Each of these acts does not, in and of itself, constitute an infringement of liberty, but our government restricts, if not outlaws, each of them which clearly is an infringement. And so 1984 is upon us as the government has taught us all to master the art of doublethink. We simultaneously believe that government protects our liberty while at the same time believing that "prevention" is a valid form of that protection, and if we allow it to continue then something is wrong with us, indeed.

Why democracy?

Over the last month or so, people have been throwing off, or trying to throw off, the shackles of their oppressive governments. It started in Tunsia, spread to Egypt, then Yemen, Bahrain, and now Libya. In every instance, though, the protestors have been calling for democracy. I suppose that's understandable; the grass on democracy's side of the fence probably looks and probably is a lot greener than that on the dictatorial side. I'm probably underselling democracy with that statement. After all, democracy is often held out as the gold standard for (good) government. Winston Churchill endorsed it, saying, "democracy is the worst form of government except all the others". Despite the actual wording, when reading or hearing Churchill's statement, people often "hear" that democracy is the best form of government. In reality, we can rightly infer from the statement that all forms of government are terrible. In Churchill's opinion, democracy is just the least terrible.

Democracy is often referred to as "tyranny of the majority" and Lysander Spooner explained, very eloquently, why:

[O]ther men practise this tyranny over him by the use of the ballot. He sees further, that, if he will but use the ballot himself, he has some chance of relieving himself from this tyranny of others, by subjecting them to his own. In short, he finds himself, without his consent, so situated that, if he use the ballot, he may become a master; if he does not use it, he must become a slave. And he has no other alternative than these two.

Democracy is a very seductive mistress because it promises the people control of the government. It gives the illusion of self-governance and individual rights. It implies that no injustice can be done so long as the "will of the people" is done. It provides nothing of the sort, though. As explained, when the people vote, a majority may and does impose its will upon the minority. "Will of the people" is rightly replaced with "will of the majority". This can be seen most prominently in the struggle in the U.S. for gay rights, and more specifically, gay marriage. In California, in 2008, 52% of the population denied gay people the right to marry. Proposition 19 last year, also in California, is another example where barely more than half of the population (53.5%) used their majority position to deny the use of marijuana -- the actual use of which affects no one other than the user -- to the rest.

There is also the problem that democracy doesn't scale. The founders knew this when they set up the U.S. House of Representatives. That is, it is not practical to hold a vote among the entire population for every matter to come before the U.S. federal government, so instead the population elects representatives to act in their stead. These representatives then practice democracy amongst themselves. This is even worse, though. Each representative currently represents just under 700,000 people. How can one person adequately represent the diverse views of almost three quarters of a million people?

Choosing between two candidates is analogous [to] going to Walmart and being presented with two shopping carts already filled with items. Everyone will leave the store with the same cart of goods. Each cart contains products that a person may want and products that one wouldn't choose to have, but the voter is not able to take anything out of either cart.

Not only that, but:

[E]ven though the voters are promised a particular set of goods in the shopping cart that won the election, that doesn't mean that the voters will receive that set of goods. The candidate could promise to deliver a specific set of policies, but after the election, the office holder is free to deliver a different set of policies to the voters, either because the candidate changed his position on some issues or because he was being deceitful during the campaign in order to gain political support.

The same can be said at other levels of government, even down to the city level, where a handful of elected officials make decisions on behalf of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people. So, the question should not be "why democracy", but "why government". At the federal level, we have things like  TSA body scanners, highway checkpoints, the PATRIOT Act, warrantless wiretaps, extra-judicial assassinations, and indefinite detentions. At the state level, we have the aforementioned denial of gay rights and marijuana use, prohibitive gun laws, and smoking bans. At the city level, we've got Happy Meal "bans" and watering limits and landscaping restrictions. And at all levels, we have taxes and police. You may be inclined to agree with some or all of these items, but that's not the point. The point is that some person or group who you may or may not have voted for or even heard of is, in one way or another controlling you. So, perhaps the question should really be, "why do people choose to be ruled".

Whether they know it or not, most people are Hobbesians, by which I mean that they believe or are fearful that the natural state of humanity is "war of all against all". They may very well be right, and in order to protect themselves from this "war", people institute governments and cede the use of force to said government, presumably to prevent the use of force amongst the people themselves. Locke argued that people do not even have the ability to cede this power in the first place, but nevertheless, ceding this power to a government presents a clear contradiction. If all people by their very nature would war with all others, why would anyone cede to anyone else the legal use of violence? James Madison touched on this idea in The Federalist, No. 51 when he said that if men were angels, there would be no need for government. He argued further that because men are not angels, pitting them against each other within government was the best that we could do. Men, competing with each other, from different branches of government, would restrain each other.

But what kind of person runs for public office? Madison failed to foresee that even the so-called "separation of powers" could not restrain men forever. Entry into politics does not require any particular skill or morality. It simply requires some combination of money, connections, personality, and a desire to rule others, particularly the last one. In fact, that last reason is probably the main reason that anyone runs for office. The idea that the world would be a better place if <insert your name here> was in charge is probably not foreign to anyone. To succeed in government, however, involves backroom deals and "compromises" ensuring that only the least moral and most willing to deal away their principles will rise to the top. Thus, government will ultimately be populated with the worst people in society, and it is only a matter of time before they decide to work together to turn their legal authority to use force on the people themselves. It turns out that government is really a sort of Faustian bargain. Government is instituted to protect people from those in society who would do harm, but how much worse is it when those who would do harm wield the power of the state?

The people of the revolting Middle Eastern and African nations now have a rare opportunity to truly be free. I fear, though, that like many before them, they will make the mistake of putting in place a government that will ultimately betray them and once again oppress them. If they are lucky, it will be to a lesser degree.

TSA in the news

John Pistole has put the kibosh on privatization (h/t Jonathan Adler) of airport screening. I suppose this was inevitable. The best way for the government to maintain it's tight-fisted control of the traveling public and, by extension, the citizens is to make sure the operation is entirely government run from top to bottom.

I'm all for privatization of screening so long as the private sector is solely in charge of it and the TSA/FAA/etc. is out of the picture. I thought I had written about privatization under TSA direction before, but I must be remembering a message sent to a staffer in my congressman's office. The short version is that privatization under TSA direction is possibly the worst possible outcome. In this situation, airline travelers would have their privacy violated by a private entity. Even though this would be at the government's direction, I believe the courts would not look favorably on a 4th amendment infringement claim because the government, itself, is not conducting the search. With the government performing the screening, a 4th amendment claim is still a viable option. Though, making that claim would be an uphill battle.

***

The TSA is "upgrading" its body scanners:

The Transportation Security Administration's new software made its debut on Tuesday at Las Vegas airport, and produces a grey 'cookie cutter' outline of the passenger, rather than the embarrassingly anatomical images that gave the devices the nickname 'porno scanners'.

Suspicious items detected by the scanner are highlighted on the operator's screen as little red boxes. Hands-on traditionalists will be pleased to note that passengers who trigger the alerts will still be subject to the very rigorous frisking that caused most of the complaints in the first place.

[...]

Kate Hanni, founder of the California-based group FlyersRights, called the new software "a great step forward."

"We're grateful to the TSA for addressing these issues that were of concern to so many people," Hanni said. "But privacy was our secondary issue. Our primary concern about the body scanners is that they are ineffective. We're also concerned about the possibility of surges in radiation."

I got the chance to speak with Kate a number of times and was interviewed with her during my TSA run-in. She's doing good work continuing to draw attention to the TSA, but I have to disagree with her on this. The TSA's "change" does nothing to address privacy. The government is still conducting suspicion-less, warrant-less searches of people at the airport, and when the result isn't to its liking, passengers will still be subjected to a groping. If anything, this is a "great step" backward because the change will likely mollify the masses. With their naked pictures no longer being seen by someone, they'll likely forget all about the fact that they're still giving up their privacy rights (supposedly) protected by the 4th amendment.

How to boil (control) a frog (society)

This morning I got a call from a radio station in Phoenix, AZ asking about a ruling from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in which the court held that a strip search and pat down of a male inmate by a female officer was unconstitutional under the 4th amendment. The interviewer was interested specifically in how I thought that this ruling relates to the TSA's warrant-less searches at the airports. I told him that in light of the Ninth Circuit's ruling in February of last year upholding strip searches of prisoners, generally, as constitutional, this case would probably not be very meaningful. The only similarity between this (current) case and the TSA procedures is the fact that the person sitting in the "other room" looking at body scans may not be of the same sex as the person being scanned. I have a feeling, though, that in its traditional deference to executive claims of national security, the court would not find the body scanners to be an unreasonable search because of the "anonymity" between the TSA agent and the person being searched.

A much better point, I thought, to come out of the interview was that people at the airport are treated virtually the same way as are inmates in the prison system. That is, people who have done nothing suspicious other than decide to travel by air are subjected to exactly the same search procedures as people who have broken the law, been arrested, been tried, been convicted, and been sent to prison. Here is a description of the search at issue in the case decided this week, and it sounds almost exactly, though this description is more explicit, like what was described to me when I tried to fly two months ago.

...the cadet touched the inmate’s "inner and outer thighs, buttocks, and genital area with her latex-gloved hand through very thin boxer shorts" and "moved his penis and scrotum in the process of conducting the search"

I can't resist pointing out, somewhat tongue in cheek, that inmates get this treatment for free. Airline passengers have to pay for it.

When asked if I thought that this comparison (airline travelers to prison inmates) would irk people enough to get them "fired up" about the searches they are forced to endure at the the airport, I answered that my experience has been that people are ruled more by their fears and desires to feel safe than by any desire to be "free" (as in freedom). And until people find the searches to be "unreasonable", it is unlikely that anything will change or that any relief will be found in the courts, given the test employed by the courts as created by Justice Harlan in Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967).

One of the things that the interview touched on but didn't delve deeply into is this "reasonable" test. (On a separate but related note, I think there is an argument to be made that the founders of this country considered all searches and arrests without warrants to be unreasonable and that "unreasonable" is not a term that was meant to be reinterpreted with the passage of time, but I digress. That's for another post.) The second prong of Justice Harlan's test is whether "society is prepared to recognize that this expectation [of privacy] is (objectively) reasonable", and it would seem that society is not prepared to recognize a person's privacy at the airport. Be that as it may, what "society" should consider in making that judgment is the ratchet effect. Governments rarely relinquish power that has been given them. Societies, in a similar manner, judge tomorrow's events by today's, not yesterday's. What I mean by this is that the standard by which tomorrow's searches are measured is today's searches. A little over 10 years ago, one could get on a plane with nothing more than a ticket. Then people were required to show identification. Then they had to take their shoes off and then heavy coats. Then people were subjected to "normal" pat downs. Now, they are subjected to a virtual strip search and/or an "enhanced" pat down. Imagine if people went one day from anonymously boarding a plane to the next day having to show identification, take off their shoes and heavy clothes and being subjected to a virtual strip search and/or an "enhanced" pat downs. People would never have gone for it. Instead, they are being slowly boiled like the proverbial frog and don't realize it. Even if the war on terror were to come to an end someday, which it most assuredly will not, these searches won't go away. They'll be cemented in society's collective mind as "reasonable".

***

Unrelated to the interview, I found it interesting that the court ruled cross-gender searches "unreasonable" under the 4th amendment. The 4th amendment only addresses the search, not who performs it, and the Ninth Circuit had already ruled searches of this type to be constitutional. It seems to me that the claim would have been better brought and adjudicated under the 8th amendment. Given that the inmate claimed that the search was humiliating and caused psychological trauma, the argument that he was subjected to cruel and unusual punishment would have been more appropriate. It seems to me that the court contradicted itself, if only slightly.

The "whole" truth

[Readers arriving from the Alternet article from April 28th, 2011 linking to this post may also be interested in reading my response.]

Today I got a call from a reporter asking about a blog post that I had written on November 1st. I was a bit taken aback. I thought that the time for my story had come and gone, and at first I didn't realize what she was talking about. After we hung up, I remembered that about two weeks prior to my encounter with the TSA at the San Diego airport, I wrote a blog entry about the TSA. Don't bother looking for it because I deleted it prior to posting my recollection of the events and the accompanying video. I don't have any copies of it, either. In it, though, I was especially critical of the TSA's new body scanners and pat down procedures. I had been reading about them in the news and wanted to include my two cents for the few people that actually followed my blog but weren't necessarily aware of them (the scanners and procedures). I don't recall exactly what I wrote, but I'm sure that substance of the post will turn up soon enough.

Near the end of the post, I noted that I had an upcoming trip in which I would be flying. Knowing also that I had about 12 readers, at the time, I jokingly asked how I should handle myself if I was selected for a secondary screening. I listed a number of options including "enjoying" the pat down, claiming a sexual assault, stuffing my pants with extra tissue paper prior to entering the screening area, etc. All of this, I thought, was moot at the time, though, because as I have repeatedly said, I was under the impression that neither San Diego nor Rapid City had the body scanners. When I posted my account and video of my encounter at San Diego, I also deleted the post in question. I thought that no one would believe that my encounter was not a set up if they knew that I had been critical of the TSA scanners and procedures in the past and written, even jokingly, about how to handle an encounter with them. Silly me for thinking that anything on the Internet, no matter how obscure, could ever actually be removed.

So, all of you who believed that this was planned, here is your "proof". For the umpteenth time, however, I did not script, plan, or stage what happened. I was, I have admitted repeatedly, prepared for such a situation by virtue of having read accounts of people like Steve Bierfeldt, Michael Roberts, and Meg McLain in addition to commentary about both these events and the scanners from numerous sources; but I did not plan it. To be honest, part of me wishes that I had because it would be much easier for me to tell my story, but the fact is that I didn't.

To those of you who feel duped, I apologize. There is no reason to feel that way, though. I stand by my assertion that the encounter was not planned or staged. I stand by my account of the events that occurred at San Diego airport. And I stand by everything that I have said and written since the event. I stood up to what I saw as an affront to everyone's 4th amendment protections and dignity, and that has started a real conversation about how much liberty we're willing to give up in the name of feeling safe. Let's not lose sight of what's really important, here.

And when I say that I stand by everything I've written, that includes what I wrote in my last post about being glad that my time in the spotlight had come to an end. I hope that the "revelation" that I had written about how to handle an encounter with the TSA and deleted said writing doesn't thrust me back into that spotlight, and in the event that it does, I hope that this post will answer any questions people may have about it because I truly don't want the publicity.

Nothing to fear (but fear and maybe the TSA)

TSA administrator John Pistole appeared in a senate oversight hearing this past week. It had already been planned, but he was questioned about my actions at the San Diego airport a few days before and about TSA procedures in general. Here is some of what he said:

As we've heard the various plots outlined here this afternoon, it is clear that we have to be one step ahead of the terrorists. And it's obvious that we are not always in that situation, as evidenced by the last three plots that would--could have been successful.

Mr. Pistole referred again and again to terrorist threats as driving the need for the procedures they use to "secure" airports and planes. And we're afraid of that perceived threat. Why is that though? In this article from Reason, back in 2006 (before the scanners and pat downs were in place), the author lays out the odds of dying by various everyday occurrences (on a yearly basis) and compares them to terrorism on a plane:

• Car crash: 1 in 6,500
• Murder: 1 in 16,500
• Crossing the street: 1 in 48,500
• Drowning: 1 in 88,000
• Airplane crash: 1 in 400,000

According to the article, if a plane was hijacked and crashed once per week, one's odds of dying would be 1 in 135,000. One would be almost three times as likely to be killed crossing the street, eight times as likely to be murdered, and over twenty times as likely to be killed in a car crash. Really think about that for a second. If a plane was hijacked and crashed once per week, you would still be more likely to be killed driving to the airport to get on that plane. The takeaway from this should be that terrorism (in the air) just isn't that common. However, it has certainly achieved its intended end, to terrorize.

One could certainly make the argument that it is the government's taking of over of airline security that has kept Americans safe. This doesn't really wash, either, though. There have been three major attempts to hijack and destroy airplanes since 2001: the shoe bomb attempt, the liquid bomb (out of the U.K.) attempt, and the underwear bombing attempt. The TSA didn't even have a chance to catch these plots because all of these flights originated outside of the U.S where the TSA doesn't control security. The TSA can't take any credit for stopping any of these plots. The passengers, themselves, stopped two of them, and good intelligence work stopped the other.

Our liberty continues to erode here at home, in the name of safety, though, while the threat of someone coming in from overseas continues. Well why not institute the same policies here as overseas? Here is another quote from Mr. Pistole during his hearing:

That being the case, I think everybody who gets on a flight wants to ensure and be assured that everybody else around them has been properly screened and, oh, by the way, everybody else on that flight wants to make sure that I have been properly screened or you have been properly screened.

What does "properly screened" really mean? For instance, while I was waiting to speak with a supervisor at the San Diego airport this last week, I observed approximately 80% of travelers being sped through the metal detectors without any kind of secondary screening (i.e. a pat down). I even observed a man set off the metal detector, be sent back, allowed to walk through again and then continue on his way after failing to alarm the metal detector a second time. People need to take a good hard look at airport security as managed by the TSA. It is a lot of show and not a lot of security. The fact that 80% of people are allowed to pass unmolested (pardon the use of the word) through the metal detector means that there is a 4 in 5 chance that someone like the shoe or underwear bombers would be able to get on a plane. What is the conclusion that should be drawn here? Again, terrorism isn't that common, just terrorizing.

Understand that I am not advocating removing all security from an airport. We need to realize that once a plot has advanced to getting whatever dangerous weapon is being used onto the plane, it's already too late, though. If would-be terrorists are able to evade the FBI, CIA, etc. why does anyone think that the TSA is going to catch them? And even if the TSA does catch them, why wouldn't they just set off their device in the airport, itself. Doing so would achieve the exact same effect. Our efforts need to be focused on good detective work before plots advance to this stage.

Flying is a "privilege"

I've gotten a lot of feedback from people about my interaction with the TSA last week stating that flying is a privilege, not a right. It is a privilege granted to me in consideration of payment of a fee to the carrier and comes with terms defined by a contract that I agree to when I purchase a ticket. The arguments along these lines fall generally into one of two categories: 1.) the purchase of the ticket implies agreement with the conditions of the contract and, thus, there is no right to complain about or opt out of the security procedures, or 2.) if one doesn't like the security procedures, one doesn't have to or shouldn't fly.

The first argument has simply to do with contract "law". (I admit, right here at the beginning, that I am not a lawyer of any kind, so don't misconstrue any of what you are about to read as legal advice.) A contract is essentially an agreement between two or more parties in which they define the terms of their interaction. In this case, I (actually, my father-in-law, but I'll pretend it was me) gave money to the airline. In exchange, they agreed to fly me to my destination subject to a number of conditions, the most important of which (for this discussion) were those pertaining to the security screening to which I would be subject. At the time of purchase and up until I arrived at the airport, it was my understanding that this screening involved passing through a metal detector, not an AIT machine. This was based on information on the TSA's own website. So, at this point in time, I have paid for a ticket and have agreed to be screened via metal detector and perhaps a "wanding" and pat down of a specific area, if necessary.

Upon arriving at the airport, I found that AIT machines were in use. From my perspective, this would put the airline in breach of contract. That is, the terms to which I agreed, that I would be subject to a metal detector, had been unilaterally altered. However, the metal detectors were still in use. There was a possibility that the contract, as understood at the time of creation, could still be carried out by the original terms. When I was selected for the AIT machine, though, this became an extremely remote possibility. (Since the TSA agents never allowed me to use the metal detector, the contract had at this point been breached.) I opted out of the machine, as TSA procedures allow. Still, I believed there was a possibility that I would receive a "standard" pat down as opposed to the one described in the video documenting my experience. I was willing to continue to try to keep the contract from being broken. Once the pat down procedure was described, however, there was no continuing. I would not subject myself to the described procedure, and now both parties were in breach of contract.

There are two ways to deal with this situation. The first is to enforce the contract. This means that I could require that the airline, via the TSA, live up to the terms as understood at the time of the creation of the contract. Alternatively, the airline, via the TSA, could require that I submit to the new screening methods. We both suggested these alternatives during the course of the discussion, but neither was mutually agreeable. Since neither party, at the time, seemed given to coercion, we had to turn to the second option. This second option is to void the contract. In this scenario, one or both (or all) parties determine that the contract is no longer in their best interest(s), and they agree to void the contract. Here, they all agree to return things to the state at which they were prior to entering the contract, possibly subject to some damages for duties performed under the contract that cannot be undone. I agreed not to fly; the airline refunded my money. Actually, the airline could have had a strong argument that they could not reasonably expect to resell the seat that I gave up and should be able to keep some or all of the money paid to them. In this case, they were gracious enough to refund the full fare. My contract with the airline was now over.

The interesting thing about this is that after the agreement had been terminated, the TSA continued to try to enforce the terms of the contract by asking me to return to the screening area. Not only that, but the TSA was employing coercive means (the threat of a fine) to enforce a non-existent contract. This is where the second argument, that if I don't like it, I shouldn't fly comes into play. This argument is not as black and white as it would seem on the surface. If the airlines were responsible for security, the "if you don't like it, you don't fly" argument would be a valid one, and this final interaction with the TSA would not have occurred. Once the government becomes involved, however, it is a party unto itself. By that, I mean that it creates rules that to which one can "agree" via entering into contract with the airline but from which, it contends, one cannot escape. Given that the TSA, over the years, has employed rules, policies, and procedures that have been kept secret from the flying public, there is no way that anyone can legitimately claim that a passenger has knowingly agreed to all of them. In spite of that, as a government agency, the TSA believes that it has the authority to use coercion to enforce contracts that cannot possibly be fully understood and, in my case, no longer exist.

The problem is bigger than that, though. The government, via the TSA, is saying that travelers can opt out of the protections afforded them by the U.S. Constitution. The problem with this is that there is no comparable alternative to flying for travel over long distances. By federalizing the security of all air travel, the government has severely limited (note that I do not say "removed") people's ability to move freely about the country by making them choose between air travel and their 4th amendment protections. Taken as a whole, the government is effectively removing the restrictions placed on it by the constitution by making it seem as though the people are willingly accepting the change:

1. The government finds an activity in which a great many people engage and which is difficult for them to avoid.
2. The government then begins to regulate said activity with disregard for whether or not the authority to regulate said activity or the manner in which it regulates is constitutional.
3. The government then uses people's continued participation in said activity and acquiescence to the regulation as an indication that its regulation is not only legal, but desired.

At this point, the government is free to operate outside of its own laws because it has forced the people to accept its actions because the alternative would be financially ruinous or prohibitively time consuming.

What will I say?

[In various places, I've heard responses like this to what I did, but very few people have taken the time to ask their questions respectfully and without name calling. I received this message early this morning and am going to take the author's measured tone as an indication that he really does want a response and does not simply want to excoriate me. I am publishing this response as a way to answer everyone who may have similar questions about what I did.]

May I ask: So if next time a terrorist successfully hides "devices" to kill Americans on a plane, because you seem to think TSA or airport security is over-excessive...What will you say?

First of all, I am not advocating that we drop all security at our airports. What I oppose are the intrusive (and arguably unconstitutional) use of body scanning (or AIT) machines that can literally take a picture of one's naked body and/or the use of the new pat down procedures in which TSA officers are not necessarily instructed to "touch your junk" but come so close that many have and/or do. I find this level of scrutiny to be invasive and offensive.

What do we do instead? As I said, I am not saying that we should simply allow anyone and everyone to get on a plane simply because they have a ticket. (I should add that I would not oppose an airline that wanted to board planes with zero security. I don't think they would get much business, but it is within their right to do so.) What I am saying is that there are alternative methods of screening passengers that are far less invasive than what we do now and could actually make us more secure. That is, we wouldn't have to rely on machines that would not detect a "device" hidden inside of a would-be attacker.

For example, I drove across the U.S./Canada border about 5 years back. When I reached the border, an agent stopped me and asked why I was entering Canada. I explained that my wife and I had been driving/sightseeing in the northeastern area and wanted to go to Niagara Falls. When he looked at my ID, he noticed that I had a California driver's license but was driving a car with Virginia plates. He asked about this. I told him that the car was rented. He then asked how I got to the East coast in the first place... There is a bit more to this story; he asked me a few more questions. My point is, though, that if someone is lying, their story usually begins to fall apart around the third question or so. We should be employing a screening more along these lines.

In addition, technology (both advanced and not-so-advanced) allows for the detection of very small amounts of explosive material. One of these is the swab that you've seen TSA take of your bags and then run through a machine. They also have employed full body sized machines that simply blow a puff of air over you and analyze the result. Finally, a lower-tech solution of using bomb sniffing dogs is a possibility. Any of these would be as equally effective in ferreting out would-be terrorists and do not require anyone to virtually take off their clothes or have their junk touched.

I'll tell you one thing that WILL happen. We service members will fight a war again, just for you, because you complained of security being unnecessary.... The terrorists are waiting for us to put our guard down again. Think about that for a bit.....

Thank you for your service. I have a tremendous amount of respect for the men and women in our military. I know that they all enter the service willing to die to protect the liberty and freedom upon which this country was founded, especially because I'm not sure that I would be able to make the same sacrifice. I would certainly like to think that I would, but I can't say for certain that that is true.

I agree with you that in the event of another terrorist attack, you will likely be called upon to go overseas and fight another war in the name of freedom. You should ask your commanding officers, and ultimately, the president, however, if your fighting in those wars makes us safer. Terrorist attacks do not take place in a vacuum. The Times Square bomber viewed himself as defending his "lands" against foreign occupation. The underwear bomber acted in retaliation for "American-backed airstrikes [...] in Yemen." Osama bin Laden's Al-Qaeda group attacked us on September 11th because of our interventionist foreign policies and our presence in Saudi Arabia. Don't forget that we actually backed Osama bin Laden in the 80's in his fight against the Soviet Union.

It goes on and on, and don't get me wrong. I fully support a strong national defense. What I oppose is a strong national offense that imposes U.S. will on other peoples. Despite the rhetoric, terrorists don't hate our freedoms. They just want us to leave them alone.

John Tyner, I UNDERSTAND what all is implied and I respect whatever you want to call this. Unfortunately you have forgotten why things are the way they are. How are you a "Hero". Tell ME that. Honestly brother, a person who self-consciously video records prior going through security had the attention to overembellish the true intent for TSA Security - FOR SAFETY and TO PREVENT PEOPLE FROM GETTING KILLED.

"Never Forget" (looks like you all forgot)
Here's a video to jock your memory.

I have not forgotten September 11th. I am reminded of September 11th every time I enter an airport, every time a "suspicious package" is found at a public building, every time a U.S. soldier like yourself is killed fighting in the name of that terrible event. It truly is tragic.

I am not a hero. I know that people have come to regard me as such, but I have explicitly disclaimed that title. I'm simply someone who stood up for what he believed to be right: that the government does not have the authority to view me naked or pat me down to the extent that they would have without some kind of reasonable suspicion or probable cause.

I have explained repeatedly the reason for my recording of my interaction with the TSA. I am not trying to over-embellish anything. In fact, the recording prevents me from doing exactly that. I don't doubt that TSA is trying to provide security for air travelers. So far though, they have done a poor job of it. Attacks on our airplanes since September 11th have been stopped by the passengers, not the TSA. It's time we started treating our passengers like the first (and arguably last) responders to a possible attack. We need to start treating them with dignity and respect and not like the very terrorists of whom we have now become so afraid.

Motivation of my filming of my TSA encounter

A lot of commenters are saying that they agree with my position on the whole issue of TSA overreach, but many of them (and also those who disagree) are asking why I filmed the entire incident. Many are suggesting that my starting the recorder is evidence of an intention to pick a fight with the TSA. As I've stated repeatedly, I checked to see if SAN had AIT machines before flying. I tried to avoid the machine once I arrived at the airport. I did everything I could to avoid a confrontation with the TSA. I'll admit that "if you touch my junk, I'll have you arrested" was not the most artful response, but I was trying to add some levity to a situation that I knew could escalate very quickly. The reason I started the recorder before placing it in the bin, though, is because of stories like this:

Detained by TSA
ACLU Sues TSA
In praise of Michael Roberts

After reading stories about what the TSA had been doing, I wanted to avoid them, but I also wanted to be prepared should I be unable avoid them. That recording was to protect my rights and theirs. At no point have I bashed the TSA agents or their handling of the situation. They were all professional, if a bit standoffish, but the standoffishness is not to be unexpected. I'm sure they deal with people far more unruly than me every day. The only time I lost my cool was at the very end when the TSA representative tried to force me back into the screening area instead of simply allowing me to be on my way. The entire incident should be judged on its merits (as demonstrated by the recording), not by whether I tried to bait them (which I did not).

So, the next question is obviously, "what do I expect to get out of this?" I don't want to be a hero; I simply want to draw attention to what is going on and give people a sense that they're not alone in the fight against the ever expanding erosion of liberty. I had this to say in response to another commenter about what had transpired:

Every attempt to blow up a plane since 9/11 has been stopped by passengers after the government failed to provide protection for them. Every incident, however, has been met by throwing more money and less sensibility at the problem. Aside from securing the cockpit doors and the realization by passengers that they must fend for themselves because they're more likely to be killed by a hijacker than flown safely to their destination where the hijacker's demands can be met, security is largely the same as it was before 9/11.

The only thing changing is the amount of money being spent on the problem and the constant erosion of liberty, and all I did was draw attention to this. If you want to argue that the airlines are private, you're preaching to the choir. I refused the x-ray machine, and then I refused a groping by a government official. I mildly protested, and when they told me that I could submit to the screening or leave the airport, I left peacefully. The only time I got angry during the entire encounter was when I was unlawfully detained and threatened with a lawsuit and a fine.

If you think the government is protecting you, ask yourself this: If the official at the end of the video thought I had an incendiary device, why would he want me to go *back* into a small area crowded with hundreds of people instead of leaving the airport as quickly as possible?

Obviously the issue of the private airline industry mingling with the government handling of security is more complex than that. For example, with private handling of security, the screener may choose to overlook victimless crimes like drug possession or possession of sexually explicit (but otherwise legal) materials or paraphernalia during a search for dangerous items (i.e. those that could be used to commit acts of terrorism). The government, on the other hand, has, does, and will use the search for dangerous items as a pretext to arrest you for anything else they may find.