We've always traversed a fine line between security and liberty here in the United States. Since 9/11, we (as a nation) seem to be more and more willing to surrender liberties hoping that it will keep us safe from harm (ie: terrorists). Besides the obvious implication that the terrorists have won by our doing so (see TriSec's blog on the topic), these intrusions have consistently been met with "well - if you have nothing to hide... what's the problem?". Apparently, we do have something to hide, and it's why we wear clothes. The revolt against personal intrusion has begun.

There have been some rumblings recently about the "full body scanners" (dubbed "porno scanners" by some brilliant person), and the alternative - groping. The doodoo will hit the proverbial fan next week as the busiest travel week gets underway, and large numbers of the American public get to experience this first-hand:

Yeah, just wait until Grandma or daughter Judy comes to the realization that their two choices are to have some anonymous TSA agent see them essentially naked or probe their crotch, and I imagine there will be scenes of outraged mayhem in all 68 of those airports.

The rumblings of discord have already percolated up to Congress where a Republican House Rep (Ted Poe R-TX) has finally had the nerve to call it what it is: a violation of our 4th amendment rights:

Ron Paul (R-TX) is introducing a bill that would make TSA agents legally liable for groping. Considering that they are at the bottom of the food chain and just following orders, I think this is the wrong approach. A better one would make the procedures illegal, so that the TSA itself would be liable. Go for the head of the beast rather than its tail, so to speak...

In response to the building uproar, NYC is looking at replacing the TSA at it's airports, and a FL Congressman (John Mica R-FL) is asking airports nationwide to do the same. While this is an understandable knee-jerk reaction (and a conservative's dream - privatizing a government function), what are the implications of that?

Consider that prior to 9/11, ALL airports had private security. They came from different companies and had different levels of quality and training. I've been around long enough to remember the stories of incompetence, rudeness, and theft that occurred at the security gates prior to the TSA taking over the responsibility. The creation of the TSA (in reaction to and just one week after 9/11) occurred in that frenzy of over-reaction to the attacks and - despite my snarky comment about conservatives - was actually created by Republicans and signed into law by then-President Bush.

So what's the answer? Eliminating the TSA or making it's employees criminally liable for following orders is not going to make things better. I would rather not return to the patchwork of security we had previously, and making agents worry about prosecution will create nervous agents that will be essentially ineffective.

The scanners and groping DO have to go. While I am against racial profiling, I can support increased scrutiny for travelers who have gone to and from certain countries AND do not fall into certain categories (like 10 year olds). As is often said - Israel keeps their travelers safe by interviewing each one. While that is not practical (although it would increase employment - use the money spent on those machines), a lot could be done using automated pre-check-in computer checks. Those that have questionable hits get extra scrutiny, and an interview. Once cleared, their electronic record should be updated as well to prevent a recurrence.

The TSA was actually a good idea to ensure standards and consistency. It has overgrown its charter however, and the beast needs to be put back in its cage. Not slain, just tamed.