The U.S. is, I believe, the only nation in the world in which airline passengers have, for decades now, been regularly groped in their intimate areas by airport security. Now, why is this, exactly? Even much more terrorist prone nations than the U.S. do not feel the need for this type of procedure. I suppose the idea is that the potential "terrorist" might be hiding plastique explosives not subject to X-ray scanning in their private parts, but, surely there are other approaches, like bomb-sniffing dogs, that would be less intrusive. Is the idea here, simply to inconvenience citizens as much as possible? Possibly, this is a make-work program for security consultants? Perhaps the effects are purely psychological, the government's idea being that the more uncomfortable citizens are, the safer they will feel?

Another illustration of these principles is the more recent obsession on the federal government's part with the use of so-called "Real ID", and corresponding security procedures for the production of, and the distribution of Real ID. The federal government has consistently violated the U.S. constitution in the last few years in an effort to force states to conform to federal requirements in this area. Now, of course, the largest states in the Union simply are brushing the feds off, in this case. If the feds mess with the largest states, these states can certainly return the favor with interest, so the largest states haven't particularly changed their procedures, at all. However, in smaller states, particularly those heavily dependent on federal funding, rather bizarre procedures are being employed, such as isolating Real ID production in a single, top secret, heavily guarded facility, which no citizen can ever approach. Thus, citizens can no longer conveniently pick up their credentials when needed in many smaller states, but must depend on the uncertainties and lack of accountability of the mails. Is there any particular security advantage gained by producing driver's licenses in facilities with the security of a U.S. military base or, perhaps, of Fort Knox? If so, it eludes me.

So, is there any way at all, that we can persuade the Department of Homeland to lighten up a bit, here? To be more reasonable, and less of a huge and inconvenient government bureaucracy that actually does rather more harm than good? Any thoughts, at all, on this important issue?