Actually, the truth is this:

You cannot have "100% security".

There is no such thing, and anyone who says they can provide it FOR you is LYING.

What we have now at airports is pretend security. Anyone who is motivated, who has an IQ above the highway speed limit, can probably do some nefarious act.

In addition to lying, they're trying to sell you something. Much like "colonic purge" is short hand for "just hand me some of your money". Also, this:

Insisting on absolute safety is for people who don't have the balls to live in the real world.

Source

They who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. -- Benjamin Franklin

Somehow this thought may have been new back in the 1700's; but I doubt it. We are now dealing with this concept, again, 200 years later.

The problem is one side has the electronic megaphone of the national press, congress and the scared sheeple that would stampede off a cliff at the smell of a tiger or wolf, let alone hearing a growl.

You see this repeatedly with the abuse by the TSA; the acceptance of the NSA spying.

It happens in the gun control movement as well. Look at what happened after Sandy Hook. Now virtually every rifle has to be registered in Connecticut. And the limit of seven rounds in magazines in New York. Would either of these laws have stopped the shooter from killing his moter and stealing her firearms? You mean the prior gun free zones in schools and background checks weren't effective, so let's put in more ineffective laws that will work? (I know I got off-topic. Sorry.)

None of what is going on now helps anyone's security and all it does is reduce our privacy and liberty.

The Franklin quote is taken out of context. He was not referring to sacrificing one's liberty to a government leviathan in exchange for protection from the vagaries of life, but to a taxation dispute and power struggle in colonial Pennsylvania.

http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/07/what-ben-franklin-really-said/#.Uwt2B_ldXy0

The words appear originally in a 1755 letter that Franklin is presumed to have written on behalf of the Pennsylvania Assembly to the colonial governor during the French and Indian War. The letter was a salvo in a power struggle between the governor and the Assembly over funding for security on the frontier, one in which the Assembly wished to tax the lands of the Penn family, which ruled Pennsylvania from afar, to raise money for defense against French and Indian attacks. The governor kept vetoing the Assembly’s efforts at the behest of the family, which had appointed him. So to start matters, Franklin was writing not as a subject being asked to cede his liberty to government, but in his capacity as a legislator being asked to renounce his power to tax lands notionally under his jurisdiction. In other words, the “essential liberty” to which Franklin referred was thus not what we would think of today as civil liberties but, rather, the right of self-governance of a legislature in the interests of collective security.

What’s more the “purchase [of] a little temporary safety” of which Franklin complains was not the ceding of power to a government Leviathan in exchange for some promise of protection from external threat; for in Franklin’s letter, the word “purchase” does not appear to have been a metaphor. The governor was accusing the Assembly of stalling on appropriating money for frontier defense by insisting on including the Penn lands in its taxes–and thus triggering his intervention. And the Penn family later offered cash to fund defense of the frontier–as long as the Assembly would acknowledge that it lacked the power to tax the family’s lands. Franklin was thus complaining of the choice facing the legislature between being able to make funds available for frontier defense and maintaining its right of self-governance–and he was criticizing the governor for suggesting it should be willing to give up the latter to ensure the former.

Nonetheless, the quote, even out of context is applicable. If we give up "essential liberty" for a small amount of temporary security (provided, of course, by the person taking our liberty), we deserve neither. And we'll not keep either for long.

The legal precept of inviolability in one's abode stretches back to the Roman Empire.

It was established as a principle of English common law by the lawyer and politician Sir Edward Coke, in The Institutes of the Laws of England in 1628: "For a man's house is his castle, et domus sua cuique est tutissimum refugium [and each man's home is his safest refuge]."

The "Castle Doctrine" is the reason both English law and American law require government agents to secure a warrant before searching someone's home.

The protections of privacy and security were later extended to homeless people's possessions in a shopping cart. Why doesn't that principle apply to people's persons and luggage at the airport?

=========================

Obama says, "I think the American people understand that there are some trade-offs involved. It's important to recognize that you can't have 100 percent security and also then have 100 percent privacy and zero inconvenience. We're going to have to make some choices as a society."

In other words, "the rational people are on my side and the rest of you are irrational hysterics."

He does that generalized appeal to an amorphous and unseen authority a great deal. For example, a "consensus of scientists" agree with his position on global warming. Or "every economist in the world" agreed that his stimulus bill was necessary.

And now, because there actually is something of a trade off between liberty and security, we're supposed to blindly go along with him on NSA spying, the TSA, ObamaCare information gathering, and other government programs that will ostensibly protect us, even from ourselves. Because the unseen authority agrees with Obama on his policies.