Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not that security is fake, it's that giving up liberty doesn't naturally produce more security, and pursuing greater liberty doesn't necessarily erode security either. It's not like pre-Revolutionary America was a notably secure place that inevitably see-sawed into a freer but insecure place afterwards.
As I said to the other respondent, I think it's important to justify the idea that both security and liberty can be achieved simultaneously.
Equally, the idea that there is a tradeoff in some particular situation is frequently asserted without evidence. The quote from the article is "It is always the case that there are benefits available from relinquishing core civil liberties."
That is 1) presented without evidence and 2) almost certainly false. It is not always the case.