I think that the public has moved beyond being comforted by security theater. Now, two other forces are propping up the absurdities: (1) bureaucratic self-preservation, and (2) leadership irrationality along the lines of "man, will I look bad if I support revoking [stupid TSA rule #1039237] and a terrorist then uses the opening in an attack."
If we assume the TSA is a political response, and we consider the statement "Politics is show business for non-pretty people"* then the TSA's policies being referred to as Security Theater seems much more expected.<p>*yes, I took a liberty to avoid such a negative emotional content word
And did anyone ever think that there would be a sound rational basis for the operations of TSA? Good morning to scientificamerican.com, too.<p>The TSA is rolling on with its own mandate regardless of science and the opinions of thinkers, and they will do anything that they want and that can superficially be based on increasing "security"; that is, such claims that people are easy to persuade to believe if they're not left to think about it.<p>I don't know how they fit in the big picture: they represent some fears or some power that people have invited into this world. But I can be pretty sure what the true reason is that compels them to justify their own existence. Follow the money.
TSA's security rules are a mix of deterrents and science. I worked on explosive detection devices for the TSA during my PhD.<p>The banning of liquids and pastes are logical. There are some extremely volatile liquid and plastic explosives that would take your leg off if you dropped [1][2]. Or if they were used as primary explosives to ignite a more powerful secondary explosive. That could be disastrous if TSA allowed liquids in larger quantities.<p>As for the detection technologies that are currently out on the market, all I have to say is that every single one of them can be confused and circumvented, which is why they have seemingly arbitrary rules. For example, xray technologies can easily confuse plastic explosives with a piece of cheese, which is why you have to take shit out of your bag. MMW wave technologies are confused by water substances, which is why you have to do a pat down if an anomaly is detected.<p>My own technology that I worked on was primarily developed as a low-cost surface technique, so if you had explosive residue on your hands or baggage our detector would alarm.<p>[1]<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitroglycerin" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitroglycerin</a>
[2]<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oa6fcun3kag" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oa6fcun3kag</a>
<i>For example, according to the TSA, the 11-inch model of the MacBook Air is fine to leave in your bag, but the 13-inch model must be removed.</i><p>There's nothing inherently unscientific about this rule. Presumably someone has calculated the volume of explosive that's worth checking for, and then another person has translated that into simple, practical rules that can be quickly taught to a large number of border agents.
I have a sneaking suspicion that the TSA's existence <i>is</i> based upon science, although the science in question is sociology and/or mass psychology.
Timely. I just cleared security where I was effectively given my choice of magnetometer, backscatter, or groping. I suppose under some reality that is more secure than assigning magnetometer to everyone. They should do it there.<p>(I'm not saying which airport. I like it this way.)
Things like the TSA are great illustrations of the pervasiveness of the surveillance-industrial complex at the beginning of this decade.<p>Security doesn't need to be a motivating factor, merely sufficient justification - after that things like back scatter body scanners, procedures that require more security staff and any other product or innovation the SIC comes up with can be shoehorned in.<p>They've worked out they can make money off of people's fear, and there's a neat little feedback loop where more security makes people more paranoid, more afraid leading to more security. Good business, if you can get it.
I didn't find this article to be very scientific. Although it claims certain rules are arbitrary it doesn't bother to point out what makes them so, which is what I was expecting when I clicked on this.
"Finally, there's the Federal Aviation Administration rule that all electronics, even headphones and e-book readers, have to be turned off during takeoff and landing, allegedly to prevent interference with the plane's navigation systems.<p>But the scientific evidence for this worry is sketchy. Some devices emit signals that could theoretically affect an aircraft's electronics. Yet “there have never been any reported accidents from these kinds of devices on planes,” FAA spokesperson Les Dorr told the New York Times last year. Once again, irrational fear, not solid science, is dictating policy for millions of travelers."<p>Actually, it is based on science. Cell phones flying by overhead while landing or taking off overload cellular base stations. So as a courtesy to cellular phone carriers, airlines require cell phones to be put into "airplane" mode. Digital Communications 101 son.