It's only government property if the government says it is. Same with airports. For that matter, the same with streets. And since the "expected and accepted level of privacy" is a function of whether or not government agents routinely grope people and/or look through their clothing in those circumstances, this is a circular argument.
Um, airports are government property because they're owned or subsidized by the government, not because they just deem it so.
To go to the store one must walk down the street. To go shopping. To go visit someone else. To go to work. To do ANYTHING outside of ones own land you must enter onto the street. This is a required daily routine action that nearly every single solitary person must indulge in in some way on a weekly if not daily basis and has
zero alternatives other than going on those streets.
This is a far cry from flying, which for most people is not a daily or weekly activity, that can be circumvented by other means such as trains, private jets, or cars, and is not routine for the majority of Americans so does not stand up to having the same reasonable expectation of ease of use as a simple street.
The key difference, of course, is that law enforcement reduces crime even if it's not 100% perfect. Whereas airport security doesn't do a damn thing. Has a terrorist attack EVER been thwarted by airport security? It certainly doesn't happen very frequently. All of these high-tech devices are nothing more than security theater.
Yes, terrorists and criminals have been thwarted by airport security. Guns, knives, drugs, and and other weapons or contraband are caught going through check points multiple times per year. Additionally, much like law enforcement, the way it "reduces" crimes is in large part due to the deterent nature of it and the difficulty in making crime be able to happen. The majority of crime that is "reduced" by the nature of law enforcement is not incidents where law enforcement actually stop the crime from happening but rather incidents where the crime doesn't occur when it otherwise would because of the deterent of the justice system and of law enforcement.
As for why have people checked at all prior to getting on a plane: Meh. A metal detector is cheap and quick enough. But I wouldn't really care if they didn't even do that. I reckon I'd be about equally safe on the plane. I ride the metro all the time without going through a metal detector, much less the Federal Nudie Booth.
The "Federal Nudie Booth" is not much longer than the metal detector. But alright, we get to the heart of your issue...you apparently think there should be no security for airports.
Think of it this way: What percentage of Americans really care enough about traditional metal scanners that they would refuse them? Probably less than 1%, nearly all for medical reasons. What percentage of Americans might object to government agents oggling their nudie pics? Probably a lot more.
Your language in this is so laughable its almost insulting. Please, go put out a playboy type magazine with x-ray images. I'm sure you'll get a ton of cash for such alluring "nudie pics". And indeed, people looking over a rather bland image for anything of question to quickly move to the next one is definitely what I think of when I hear the word "oggling". You're terminology throughout this is nothing but a dishonest ridiculous joke.
Regardless of more people being annoyed with the body scanners than the metal detectors, the searches that are going on are no different than before and the outrage being levied upon them are ridiculous over exaggerated and filled with astounding hyperbole.
So what you're essentially doing is implementing an old procedure (the manual junk-touching) in a much wider range of circumstances than before. Of course that's offensive, and an affront to civil liberties.
If a bunch of paranoid nutball prudes are so scared someone wants to get their jollies off by looking at their unflattering imagine through an x-ray scan for a couple of seconds, ****'em.
See, its fun using idiotic hyperbole exaggerating language in conversation in attempt to make my point look better by making the opposing side look worse through insulting language.
Just like most people don't mind if the highway patrol cops give a suspected cocaine smuggler a full cavity search, but they'd raise all kinds of hell if cops started doing it for routine traffic stops. If they did that, do you think that "the full cavity search has been part of the police repertoire for years" would fly?
And no one is giving full body cavity search for routine traffic stops. They're doing a pat down only after someone refuses to go through the routine stop yet refuses to not relent on attempting to access a secure area. And the reason for the pat down is because a search has to be done that covers the same ground as what the technological search would do.
So yes, if routine traffic stops gave a damn about what was in someones anal cavity, and they had some way to do it other than physically giving you a cavity search, and you deny them the ability to do that, then yeah...bend your ass over.
To access the sterile area of an airport your person must be secured. You can do it quickly and with less contact by utilizing the technology that is available. If you choose to forgo said technology you don't get to somehow bypass the fact that your person must be secured. And the only way to do that if you won't use the technology is to do it physically. That is in no way similar in any way to your worthless analogy of comparing a routine traffic stop, which has nothing to do with searching ones body cavity, to giving people cavity searches. But its that kind of over the top ridiculous hyperbole that epitomizes the arguments going on right now and the level of piss poor intellectual honesty that is being put on display with this topic throughout the media.
You, and others, are acting like you have an issue with the body scanner. But your actions and words speak louder than your protests to the contrary do. Your issue is with TSA and anything that you can latch onto to bitch about it more...regardless of whether its inaccurate, misleading, exaggerated, or incorrect.
