Doesn't the fact that the government is involved in the taking-away of privacy make it different than when you're involved with a private company? The Constitution does not apply to AA, Delta or Continental (I forget the wording exactly, but it's supposed to limit the powers of the government, right?) If one chooses to voluntarily surrender one's privacy in return for something else, the free market (within limits) allows this. If the govt. wasn't involved at all in airlines and security, you might see a new airline form without security procedures to capitalize on untapped demand (of conspiracy nuts etc.)
If the same thing is legislated by the govt., which is, essentially, a monopoly enforced by brute force, there are only two choices - drug testing or no chess (to resurrect my horrible example). This is written into law and pretty close to irreversible.
I can't think anymore (it's late and I have homework to do) and as I re-read my argument, it makes less and less sense. Ignore me now (especially Dhamsaic - I do not need to be ripped a new one
