I am definitely in the minority of posters here, since most people don't have the stomach for some of the vitriol directed at people who support sane security. That is generally, not always, what we have now, in a heightened period of alert.

I think that security is generally irritating, and inconvenient at times, but legal. I believe in the rule of law, which contains a process to challenge laws that are perceived to be unconstitutional, and a series of checks and balances that assure the will of the people is generally enacted. I think that many people posting in opposition to security are using it as an excuse to advocate a general application of the constitution which is not supported by anything more than a tiny minority of the public. These people would like nothing more than to use this red herring issue as an excuse to appear more mainstream to a larger group of people.

I also think that security is as much about commerce as it is about physical security, and that the confidence of the entire U.S. public in our ability to protect our borders from terrorists is absolutely central to our economy. This is why I shake my head when people talk about perception among the public being irrelevant.

I also balance the cost of 5% too much security (waiting a few minutes in line) with 5% too little (another catastrophe), and find the cost of too little security to be way too high to pay.

Finally, unlike many people I know, I live by the assumption that larger groups of people collectively make better decisions than small ones, and the vast majority of the public has demonstrated confidence and support in the current security system. This is why I have trouble taking serioulsy people who call the general public stupid, brainless, etc. In fact, I have a hard time taking people who namecall seriously in any context. The ability to remain civil is a hallmark of adult behavior.

Having said that, there are many things I disapprove of in the current schema:

1. The TSA is already too large, bloated, and inefficient, because it has no incentive (in the form of profits) to do better. I generally blame political infighting for that. Security would have been better served by allowing it to remain private with federal oversight, and general tightening. I do think that as the threat level subsides, combined with what will be a generally worsening economy, public attention will naturally turn to this agency's budget,a nd it will be cut. Not voluntarily; human nature precludes any organization voluntarily getting smaller.

2. Some of the enhanced security scrutiny we undergo and have undergone is temporarily excessive, while new procedures are developed, made systemic, and standardized. It would be nice if this process of development went faster. But I am patient to allow them time to work this out, and many improvements have come to fruition as a result.

3. The procedure and standards for evacuating terminals is too rough, and needs work. It happens too often, and is too intrusive to be used except when there is a reasonable risk at hand.

That is a brief summary, and I thank you for asking.