I suspect that either people are growing tired of the polarization or they think you're trolling.

Polarization and framing: you (and the TSA and media) have presented an amalgamation of various half-baked ideas, thrown them in a bag with some actual proven ideas, and slapped a big "security" label on it. It's impossible to have a productive discussion if you're using overly broad terminology, or defining words differently. Then, you turn it into a binary debate by labeling those who disagree with your particular brand of "security" as "anti-security." Start by defining, in terms of the intended result and means to get there, exactly what you mean by "security," and don't lump all kinds of "security" together under one label.

Trolling: since this type of conversation almost invariably produces back and forth arguments between people thinking, "If only they read my own unique perspective, maybe they'll finally understand." The first word that pops into my mind when someone starts this kind of conversation is troll. You know that most of HN is vocally opposed to the kind of child-groping security theater the TSA is practicing, so you might be better received if you tried to explain your security goals in ways that appeal to that audience. For example, give us solid metrics that were decided upon before a new security measure was enacted, demonstrably correlate to actual crime, improve after the measure is implemented, and don't cause undue burden on freedom or the economy (where by "undue" I mean cost more in time, money, or liberty than the time, money, or liberty gained by implementing the measure).

     Those who would give up Essential Liberty 
     to purchase a little Temporary Safety, 
     deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

That was Benjamin Franklin, a man that once fought for the freedoms you enjoy today. People died for you to enjoy the lifestyle you currently have, yet you are willing to trade other people's freedoms for your own safety.

Anyway, be happy because a majority in the US believes in the same bullshit that you do.

Yes, I down-voted you. Mostly because you're a zealot that just repeats the gospel you saw on TV and when reading such opinions (stated as facts nonetheless) makes me lose faith in humanity a little.

You're not being "silenced" dude, chill out. You're getting downvoted (rightly or wrongly) because people either disagree with you, or find your arguments unconstructive, or both.

I happen to strongly disagree with your position, but I'm happy to read what you said and consider it.

I just find that freedom (as a value) trumps security... I mean, none of us are - afaik - planning to live forever, and I personally don't consider a life to be worth living unless it can be lived free from oppression. Life in a country that values freedom and liberty as core principles is dangerous... ok, we get it. And more than a few of us are quite happy with that state of affairs.

This is all also, of course, ignoring that most of what passes for "enhancing security" today is really just "security theatre" that isn't doing a damn thing to actually make anybody any safer.

"Resist complaining about being downmodded. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading."

http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

This is exactly why authoritarians like you prefer less freedom for the people. Because otherwise you can't make them listen to you.

And of course you're just as blind to the consequences here as with airline security. You'd sell out everyone else's right to have a say, for the flawed representative democracy we have, without even ensuring it'd even listen to you.

If you suddenly noticed a real flaw and wanted it addressed you'd find yourself just as ignored by the system as we are by you.