They also cost a lot of money, which (surprise!) is going right to a company in which former Homeland Security goon Michael Chertoff has an ownership stake.
And as the above commenter noted, they don't detect the threat they are designed to protect against, which is plastic explosives worn on the body.
Also, peacefully protesting about ongoing violations of the 4th Amendment in an airport will apparently get you arrested. A student describes how he was intimidated and threatened by the TSA in this filing, starting from page 9: http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2011/03/tobey....
He had done nothing more than write the amendment on his chest and expose the text after being selected for body scanning. The story was submitted earlier: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2326382
I don't know about NO gain in security, but certainly less gain in security than other measures that cost less, don't cause health concerns and don't violate the Constitution.
When the powers of an agent of the federal government come into conflict with the rights of a citizen, the powers granted to the government most certainly apply (the right to freedom of movement). TSA agents are not law enforcement officials; they can conduct administrative searches /only/. The extent of the searches is currently being litigated, but we have to deal with the status quo until the courts or the legislature deals with it.
The TSA has moved from airports, to train stations, to subways, and roadblocks. If you live in any portion of the US you most likely use at least one of those methods of transport on a daily basis.
If your job requires a lot of travel, then short of a radical career change (itself, a pretty unreasonable demand)airplanes are your only viable choice.
But are you "forced" at gunpoint? Obviously not, but this is a ridiculously high standard to use when establishing whether someone is being compelled to do something.
If your boss says "you need to be in Dallas on Monday morning", you need to be in Dallas on Monday morning.
This is not a good argument. You have no legal right to drive an automobile or to fly a plane, both are heavily regulated. The "if you have a job that requires X" argument is fundamentally weak, there is no intrinsically superior right to any activity due to it being job related or not (this is a good thing, I believe).
The problem of course is the extent of intrusion on daily lives.
The better legal approach is the 10th amendment route, or coming up with new legislation.
