I described actual harms (like getting things stolen, getting arrested for things unrelated to the bomb-search,) but it is important to understand that the privacy rights, including the ones protected by the 4th amendment, are not about physical damage to one's property. It is a right to be secure in your person, papers and effects. There are psychological as well as physical violations to consider here.

Your arguments about coke fly in the face of much thinking in this area. Obviously we could find all the smugglers if we just searched everybody routinely, even though we have no reason to suspect them for carrying drugs. We don't want this, however, in our society. Nor should we get it by default because we decide to search everybody for bombs.

What you may misunderstand is that even criminals, such as pot smokers, have the right to privacy. It is only lost when there is a reason to suspect them of the criminal act. Yes, you do have the right to carry pot in your bag and not have it be searched unless there is some compelling reason to believe that you personally have contraband. This is true even though carrying pot is itself unlawful.

We clearly use different definitions of voluntary. Tell me, when word came to me my father would die, 3000 miles away within a day, what other means of travel would you have suggested as among my options? The only "option" you can present is to not go, which is certainly possible but at odds with a nation which believes in freedom of travel. With your definition of voluntary, what forms of free travel are non-voluntary? I don't have to drive, I can walk or bike or take transit. Does this mean we can search anybody who uses any one of these particular means if we see a danger in it. (Certainly Iraqis have painfully learned this about driving. I'm glad I'm not in Iraq.)

How would you set the standard, so that the right to travel without having to waive other fundamental rights still exists in a meaningful way?