Do we really need insurance to cover $100/mo meds? Insurance already doesn’t cover OTC vitamins, right?

It’s not a submarine attack at all. If anything I bet you these compounders are surprised they haven’t been shut down already for blatantly violating the law.

It’s a case of trying to get so many consumers buying that regulators are scared to touch you due to blowback. Much like Uber did.

LMGTFY: Aviation and Transportation Security Act

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-107publ71/html/PLAW...

Just wait until you find out how the feds enacted the 55mph speed limit or are using the threat of revoking Medicare funding for hospitals that perform certain medical procedures that the feds would like to have not happen...

Presumably the airport or airline has agreed to (or would agree if asked to) have TSA decide whether you are “free to go that way, towards the airplanes”.

You are already free to go that other way (towards the street), but not necessarily free to go the way you want.

I think it’s a mistake to assume these policy decisions all have peer-reviewed science behind them.

A gate pass is a thing to pick up or drop off people who will be flying as unaccompanied minors. I don’t what other circumstances allow their issue, but when I did it a couple years ago, everyone seemed to know the process, so it’s not that rare.

If they decide to follow up to make an example of you, they can easily record a video of you until you raise your arms over your head somewhere later in the airport or on the flight. You won’t have a good time proving your case.

Just because you can raise your hands over your head doesn't mean it isn't painful.

In any case, it's legal to opt-out of the scanners, so why would they care what method you use (really what language you use) to indicate you'd rather get a pat-down than go through the scanners? Either way you're complying with the law.

Is your concern that a thimbleful of good faith for vandals is too much or too little?

Too little, I tend to be highly suspicious of anyone that compares humans to dogs, it's usually not a good sign. Let alone for such a petty crime.

If you confiscate my Diet Coke at security, you have created demand for Diet Coke on the other side of security.

Headline says “…if asked”

Article and facts are “…if served with a valid legal order compelling it”

∴ Headline is clickbait.

You are arguing semantics, whereas the point is that A) they have your keys, and B) they will give them away if they will have to

No, that’s binary thinking. The degree to which they will resist giving them away matters.

I’d much rather they require a warrant than just give it to any enforcement agency that sends them an email asking. The former is what I expect.

It’s really just A. Point B is pretty much just derived from there.

asked, not ordered. Seems fine.

I would prefer “it is impossible for Microsoft to give the keys because that’s not how their encryption works”.

That’s the case if you change a setting.

The default setting is a good mix of protecting people from the trouble they’re far more likely to run into (someone steals their laptop) while still allowing them back in if they forget their password. The previous default setting was no encryption at all which is worse in every case.

You can change it it you like.

The way it is is important. Otherwise getting locked out is very easy. I think booting into safemode or messing with specific bios settings / certain bios updates enough to lock you out.