The point here is that the measures being taken rarely increase the security of the public. Restrictions on liquids are ridiculous, because liquid explosives are highly unstable. The “no-fly” terrorist watchlist is ridiculous, because it only stop a terrorist stupid enough to not use a fake ID. Even the ID checks are ridiculous, because you can say you forgot your ID, and they’ll “verify” your identity on-site – so they only stop terrorists who aren’t smart enough to know this in advance, and say they forgot their ID.

Searches of laptops are ridiculous because they create volumes of additional “data” for us to search through. Rather than concentrating on legitimate intelligence gathering, such as the type that actually caught the terrorists in London who were plotting to use a liquid explosive, we’re focusing on security theater (to use Bruce Schneier’s term).

I’m all for security, don’t get me wrong. But power is prone to abuse – I’m only interested in measures that actually increase security while minimizing the impact to the privacy and civil liberties of law-abiding citizens. To allow anything else is to invite a slow descent into totalitarianism.

I realize that, yes, I am being technical. And you are correct that similar laws could be enacted which would effectively restrict the use of other forms of transit to those willing to show ID. The thing is, there are legitimate reasons for people to have concerns about aircraft security. Even before the 2001 example, people hijacked airplanes and the situation didn’t always end well. Airport security has always been steps above security for other forms of transit. (This is actually one of the drivers for proposals involving high speed rail links in Canada – you can get from X to Y for that meeting without security delays.)

I’m far from intimately aware of all the security laws in Canada, let alone the US. That said, there are both legitimate and perceived needs for a certain level of security. In the longer term, people will get the level of security (with both the good and bad connotations of the word) that they vote for.

Certainly these rules are antithetical to the idea of a free society. And yes, religious intolerance is, in part, already a major driver of the current security mindset.

However, I don’t see the situation taking a 180-degree turn to become anti-Christian as you suggest. After all, most of the security agenda in the current US administration is being perpetuated by the neo-cons, a group with strong Christian values.

As for the end of times – well, the Large Hadron Collider is due to be powered up on September 10th, so maybe you won’t have to wait for long.

Taken to the logical conclusion, the same argument could be used to prevent you from gaining access to the train station, the bus terminal, the ferry pier, or ever the freeway.

“Oh, you don’t have to show me ID to travel sir – just to gain access to the ‘secured freeway’…”

Actually, to be technical, they are not impeding your ability to travel. Travel all you want. Walk, drive, take a train or a bus or boat. They are simply saying that if you want to go where you have access to aircraft you need to show ID.