Haha yeah, I do agree that being groped by the TSA is not very pleasant. I think it's more pleasant than having your plan hijacked, though.
There are trade-offs to make. Air travel is already the single safest way to travel. The chance of dying in a aircraft-related accident are approximately a 1-in-200,000. The chance of being struck by lightning in your lifetime is approximately 1-in-6,250. It's about a 1-in-500,000 chance of being killed by lightning. Would you be willing to go through invasive pat downs or naked body scans several times a year if it prevented being injured or killed by lightning?
We are trading off monetary expense, inconvenience and the loss of dignity/privacy and/or increased X-ray radiation in hopes that these scanners (and invasive pat downs) make us safer. These techniques do not detect what you have swallowed or otherwise stowed in a body cavity, so there's already ways to circumvent the system (such as swallowing a bladders of explosive/flammable/toxic liquids, for example). Since the terrorists are equally aware of the security systems in place, I think we can assume they will plan around such security. I suspect such scanners and pat downs make us safer, but I think it's only by an infinitesimal margin.
No security system is going to make us absolutely safe. Any security system that can be created is hackable somehow. So then the question becomes how much are we going to pay in monetary expense, inconvenience and loss of dignity and freedom for what size an increase in safety. In a way, we are giving away to our government for a promise of safety what we would never willingly give to anyone else.
I also grow weary of the "heads I win/tails you lose" aspect of the security pushers. If we detect a terrorist threat without such technology or if there is an unsuccessful attempt that made it through security (like the shoe and underwear bombers), then it means we need additional security (taking shoes off) or technology (back scatter machines). If we detect a terrorist threat because of the added security, then it proves its worth and how we should add more of it. If a terrorist attack is successful, it means we need still more security. If there's no attack, it shows how investing in additional security works.
Every single outcome is interpreted to mean that we need more security. That doesn't seem like sanity to me.
^ Oh I get it. That will take some top-notch psychological training. A lot of people seem to have anxiety disorders here and stammer, flush for no reason... If done well, it's a good idea. But if we don't know what we are doing, it will be a huge mess.
I don't understand how 'random screenings' are efficient or logical to catch terrorists. Like, maybe if we check one out of every thousand, we MAY catch someone? Or is this just to cover up the racial profiling?
Also, I don't understand what's so awful about those full body scans? I rather do those than have someone touch me.