by Bill Stuntz

I suspect the kind of cost-benefit analysis Cass suggests would yield the conclusion that banning carry-on luggage is a bad deal: too much cost for too little benefit. It seems interesting to me that such a move would have any significant public support. Does it? If so, I think it's an example of a larger pattern in the law and politics of law enforcement generally: we are surprisingly (to me anyway) tolerant of large restrictions on our liberty, and surprisingly intolerant of even small restrictions on our privacy. Seems to me, it's a much bigger intrusion on my freedom to have the government tell me I'm not allowed to bring a laptop or a book on board a plane or train (will trains be next?), than to have some government computer doing data analysis of zillions of phone conversations, including a few in which I participated. There are lots of examples in the law of criminal procedure. In general, it's easier for the government to lock me up than to search my briefcase. I'd rather they didn't do either, but if I had to pick one, I'd happily give them the briefcase. Either my tastes are strange, or the law is.