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).