[bk]

I completely agree with your description of the problem, it's an organizational dilemma, and not much can be done about it.

At the same time, reasonable people need to speak up about and work on important issues, because it affects the opportunity cost of those in power. If there is zero (perceived) opposition, it becomes cheaper to create more restrictions.

[tptacek]

Thanks. I know (from, you know, rereading) that I sound unhinged.

But can I just suggest that this problem is completely intractable? Given the fact that we've accepted the costs of not having cellphones on planes, or listening to our iPods when the plane is landing, or bringing 6 ounces of fluid onto a flight --- given the fact that society and the economy is still functioning given these meaningless and onerous restrictions --- there is simply nothing in it for the government to removing the restrictions.

[bk]

I don't know who downvoted you, I voted you back up. I tend to share your pessimism (or its close correlate realism) about this particular situation. Pick your battles so to speak.

As an example of what I was trying to express, in the last German national election, 2% of Germans voted for the Pirate Party, which was running essentially as an interest group for personal freedom and privacy.

The previous grand coalition government had used the specter of child pornography to legislate secret Australia-style black-lists. People stood up by signing a petition against this and risked being labeled "pro-child porn".

The newly formed (more liberal) coalition abandoned this project during their negotiations, with the Chancelor expressly pointing out the surprising 2% success of the Pirate Party.

This is a case where stupidity was being undone, because of civic engagement.

As I said, pick your battles and don't become a cynic. (Not trying to imply you are, just generally speaking). Cheers. :)

Side note: I appreciate a good rant once in a while, so I don't take any issue with your original post.