No, he's right. The 99% comes from the justifications used to support bad ideas like backscatter scanners. It comes from the well-meaning but misguided (or just unethical) groups and individuals that say, "99% of the time, there won't be a problem. 99% of the people that pass through these will never have to worry about the pictures. We'll be able to stop 99% of all weapons. This is a good idea, 99% of the time."

This is basically about compromise. How much do we want to compromise our principles in the name of a little extra supposed safety? Are we really willing to keep endlessly compromising 1% of our principles ad infinitum for the sake of 99% effectiveness?

We've already made compromises in being willing to let our belongings be searched before boarding a plane; we've already made compromises in allowing those searches to be performed by people who aren't law enforcement; we've already made compromises in allowing our bodies to be searched; we've already made compromises in having to disrobe some while standing in line; and, each time, there have been people justifying it by saying that 99% of the time, this is a good idea.

You and I might not agree with that, but he's not arguing that to us; he's arguing the 99% rule to everyone who uses it.