No, the point is that a person should not be required to undergo either an invasive physical search or a health-risking scan in order to travel as a general rule. It is a violation of their civil rights. Except that neither is automatically true. I'm still amazed that you're throwing around concepts such as "civil rights violation" like it's a forgone conclusion. 1)If we were following the proposed EU standard, then the only option would be "go through the scanner or don't fly." As we both know, the EU covers 27 member states and the largest combined air travel market in the world. I think the easiest policy in the US would simply have the TSA adopt the EU's procedure and "say no scanner, no fly" and get rid of the pat down. What do you do then? 2)It looks like Japan mirrors the US standard, and since it tells passengers to remove their coats and jackets for scanning, I'd assume that they use a similar form of body scanner. (it doesn't say which technology is specifically used) 3)If we looked at the El Al standard, it's even more invasive. Your car would be searched by armed guards upon entering the airport, you'd be interviewed by up to 3 psychological screeners, and your bags "down to the toothpaste tube" would be opened and examined. What does that cover? Probably more than 90% of the world's airline destinations? Great. Modern airline travel involves a loss of choice. It's not the 1960's anymore. All of the major air travel markets have some form of invasive search and checkpoint in order to fly, and millions of passengers don't seem to be affected by it. If you want to avoid high tech invasive checkpoints, then I'm sure there's an airport in Eritrea that would probably fit the bill. Or you might be kidnapped and held for ransom, which would be worse...I don't know. Or, as I keep saying, instead of focusing on the philosophical construction of free will, just spend the 30 seconds in the checkpoint and continue on to your destination with no worries, and enjoy what is really important.