So basically you are willing to risk other peoples lives to ensure a politically correct approach to security. I wonder what would have happened to your precious civil liberties if, during WW II the federal Govt had decided not to focus their security efforts on German people seeking to kill non-German people and had instead spent billions of dollars on say, screening Muslims as they entered the country. HMMM...I wonder how effective that would have been? And how would the non-combatant Muslims of the WWII era have reacted to being treated like Nazis? If you want to survive in war time, you focus mainly on the current threat, not some historic threat or a theoretical future threat. Or as liberals in Congress whined after 9-11, you "connect the dots." As one Louisiana State Guard commander once said: "Don't get stuck on stupid."

Wow, that's amazing. A person that thinks technology is incapable of determining terrorist intent by measuring respiration, heartbeat, and other tell-tale physical indicators with dispassionate objective sampling tests, nevertheless thinks he can determine motivations without reviewing the design specs. That is indeed ironic.

...Oh yeah: SECURITY!!! Make it the most secure platform available and over time it will become the dominant Business platform. Start by making the kernel impervious to root kits. I know, nothing is ever totally secure. But that is precisely the complacency we need to overcome. Why not totally secure? Not as an absolute reality, but as a goal we aggressively pursue. If the white hat community and the open source communities combined their efforts and pursued a totally secure kernel with the energy that the blackhat community pursued hacking the kernel, one suspects we could at least stay a step ahead of them. The problem is we tend to be reactive...always defending instead of preventing.