Just a thought, and I'm sure I'm not the first to have such an occurrence, but couldn't the legality of these "security measures" as they call them, be challenged in court?
What would happen if it could be proved that the inefficacy of said rules, coupled to their high profile and cost, amounts to misleading the public as to the level of security which is effectively being provided. Doesn't it essentially amount to negligence and fraud? The "need to know" trick which Danny mentions should only get them so far given enough judicial pressure.
Anyone know if such challenges have been made before a court yet? If not, perhaps it would be possible to explore this option and if viable, a legal fund could be created to which interested parties (i.e., us) can contribute. Much better than sitting here whingeing and doing nothing methinks.
/lh2