I am not certain that much difference would have resulted, other than time spent in the checkpoint (and that would most likely have been negligible). I have already agreed with you that there are many things that should be public knowledge, anything you can reasonably determine simply by watching a checkpoint is kind of a moot subject to try and keep a secret. Any news crew or individual can set up and record much of what goes on in a checkpoint, so making that info public knowledge is not that big of a change from a personal perspective - however, I am not privvy to all the information used to determine policies on what remains SSI, and what does not, so there may be reasons for keeping things SSI that I do not know about. I think this has boiled down to a push in the public view in general - you have an accusation on one hand, an official response on the other disputing the original account of events, essentially a "he said, she said" issue. The same is true for the incident involving the accusations of taking candy and insulting the deaf man - initial story accusing, official response disputing. I am not asking you to question anything, that is a decision you have to make on your own. The witness is there for both the passenger and the TSA, I will give you that there is more of an upside for TSA to have their individual in the room as a witness, but the passenger has the option of having a witness there on their own behalf, which would be a boon to them, and TSA. It makes it easier to dispute false claims, and to make certain that the TSOs keep each other honest or to prevent them from making mistakes.