It's not so much de-politicizing (as you say, it's inherently political), but how much editorializing commentary you add on top of it. It's somewhat a matter of taste, but I think the same content could've been conveyed with less editorializing, which would've made it easier to share with people not politically predisposed to agree.

In this case? Just demonstrate that the machines don't serve their stated purpose. Whether or not you think a measure like this is justified, the issue here is that the machines are so trivial to circumvent that they're a pure waste of money.

Those who support security measures like this ought to be angry at that, because it means money has been wasted that could've been used on measures that might actually work. Those who don't support measures like this ought to be angry because it means the privacy invasions are for nothing.

Either way, not much commentary is needed.

Well, it is obviously political but it is not entirely clear what the solutions are. Getting rid of the TSA without anything else to replace the government's role in mandating security standards at airports will probably make the situation no better. Whoever stands in is a target for the sort of lobbying that has brought us to this point.

I think now is the time to begin a conversation and be open about where it leads. When we say exactly what must be done on an organizational level regarding the government before we really collectively think through the issues, we risk making changes that don't really change anything.

Provide more facts and fewer conclusions.