There are some excellent points in this article http://www.vox.com/2014/5/26/5750764/the-case-for-abolishing-the-tsa regarding the complete and utter pointlessness of the wildly unconstitutional TSA.
As a rational person might expect, when one puts up a barrier in one place, stuff happens in other places. What does this mean? It means attacks were displaced:
While there were 6.3 fewer hijackings, there were 6.8 more “miscellaneous bombings, armed attacks, hostage taking, and events which included death or wounded individuals (as opposed to non-casualty incidents) in both the short and long run.” Making hijackings harder, in other words, didn’t reduce attacks, but encouraged would-be hijackers to attack through other means. Additional research done after the review has similarly concluded that screenings are, in effect, a wash.
The article also links to this debate: http://www.economist.com/debate/days/view/820#pro_statement_anchor where “security guru”, Bruce Schneier, reminds us that the best the TSA does is:
confiscating home-made electronics, alerting the police to people with outstanding misdemeanour warrants and arresting people for wearing fake military uniforms.
Freedom is not free. It’s messy and people get hurt. But one is free to call in to question the point of wasting billions of dollars on groping toddlers.