6 ms·

Is there a reason why the concept of "security theater" hasn't caught on in the mainstream? It seems like it should be easy to oppose things that make us feel s

by Cushman 15y ago

Is there a reason why the concept of "security theater" hasn't caught on in the mainstream? It seems like it should be easy to oppose things that make us feel safer but objectively make us less safe.

mooism2 15y ago
Alas too many people ignore other people's objectivity and pay attention to their own feelings instead. And then they notice that many "objective" people say the security measures that make them "safer" really put them at increased "risk", and wonder what hidden agenda these "objective" people have and whose side they're really on.
Jach 15y ago
Seven syllables is too many. But you're right, the article glosses over the bigger issue than the two it mentioned: these measures don't help security and very strong cases can and have been made that it actually hurts security.
martingordon 15y ago
I experienced "security theater" just this past weekend coming back from Nashville. As the line for the x-ray scanner started to grow, they started letting people just go through the metal detectors. Once the line shrunk back down, they started forcing people to go through the scanner again. I opted out of the scanner just as they started letting people go through the metal detector again. The TSA agent told me, "you know these are completely safe and no human sees the pictures anymore, right?" If I had gotten in line just a few seconds later, I wouldn't have had to go through the scanner or be subject to the enhanced pat down. I mentioned this to the TSA agent doing my screening and he said, "sometimes timing is everything". If the scanners are as necessary as they want us to think, I'm glad to know that the chance that my plane gets blown up doesn't depend on how well those scanners work but simply on whether a would-be bomber went through security during a busy period.
- hieronymusN 15y ago
  I've seen this same scenario in play many times in different airports. In some larger airports (IAH) they only have 1 body scanner but way more volume than it can handle, so they will have two other lines going through standard metal detectors. I just stand in one of those lines and bypass the scanner. The last time I asked a TSA guy how to request a pat down and not go through the scanner he got visibly annoyed and started loudly proclaiming how safe the scanners were, its just an X-ray, yadda yadda.
  - clistctrl 15y ago
    I opted out at a scanner in Milwaukee (not as much for health as just generally disagreeing with the concept) it was one of the active millimeter scanners. When I did he proceeded to tell me it wasn't an x-ray scanner, but used radio waves "like your cell phone". At first I was going to comment on the frequency difference, but instead i decided to say "oh i see, so it's radiowaves like my microwave oven?".
- pavel_lishin 15y ago
  > The TSA agent told me, "you know these are completely safe and no human sees the pictures anymore, right?" Wouldn't the obvious response be, "If nobody sees the results of the detector, why are we walking through it?"
  - kiiski 15y ago
    Surely the software can detect anything strange just as well as (or better than) a human could.
    - koenigdavidmj 15y ago
      I'm thinking that you are a bit overconfident in the state of computer vision software.
    - VladRussian 15y ago
      yep, TSA scanners (i mean machines) swapping funny pictures on Facebook. Turing would be proud.
tallanvor 15y ago
I think part of the problem is that a significant portion of the US doesn't fly often enough to be greatly inconvenienced by this. And, of course, the media can always find people willing to say "Well, if it will make us safer..." Imagine the outcry in New York if they announced that they were going to install metal detectors and x-ray machines at the entrance to every subway stop. --That would (hopefully) never be implemented because the number of people who would complain and campaign against such measures would be much higher.
- danssig 15y ago
  Well, I think we're going to find out as TSA plans to do exactly that.
- droithomme 15y ago
  In the past I would have agreed. But I've seen the "imagine the outcry" argument brought up, the thing is later implemented, there is brief murmering, police crack down on the few hard core dissenters, then the masses begin to chant "Well of course we have to xray everyone getting on the subway, it's the only way we can be safe."
- hieronymusN 15y ago
  Well, they did do random bag checks at random subway stops for a while. It was always half-assed and you were not compelled to let them search your bag, you could just turn around and walk a few blocks to the next stop where they were not checking bags. It was all Security Theatre to make all of us here in NYC "feel safer" and let us know the NYPD was "on top of things". From a security standpoint it was absolutely pointless and people did get annoyed.
  - spodek 15y ago
    The police still do random bag checks. I've seen them doing them in Union Square within the past month or two. Anyone who declines the search can simply exit and enter the same station from a different entrance. They make no sense as anything related to security.
- 15y ago
Alex3917 15y ago
"Is there a reason why the concept of 'security theater' hasn't caught on in the mainstream?" If Americans were intelligent enough to understand the concept, it probably wouldn't exist in the first place.
dahjelle 15y ago
I suspect it is the same reason that "auto repair theater" or "computer repair theater" or even "movies-that-are-garbage-but-pass-as-entertainment theater" still exist. It is nearly impossible to be well-educated in every facet of one's life, and people need to pick and choose what they become knowledgeable about. Security is both a new enough topic that most people don't realize its importance and a complex enough topic that it isn't easy to really understand. Most people want to be safe; they don't want to understand security.
eof 15y ago
Because the 'mainstream' is still largely controlled by the 'powers that be' and there isn't a clear distinction between those that ultimately influence the ideas in the mainstream and those benefit greatly from a marginalized society. Security theater benefits those in the oligarchy in two ways: highly profitable contracts for expensive machines, and a normalization of invasion of privacy.
roc 15y ago
As far as I can tell, it hasn't caught on because Americans don't want to hear it. We seem to have a deep problem with denial. Sure, people might join in on chastising the TSA for a particular mistreatment of a passenger. But overall they just don't want to think about the idea that there's no real solution to terrorism. They certainly don't want to confront the idea that sometimes, despite setting our minds and hundreds of billions of dollars against a problem, that we can't solve anything; let alone consider the notion that we might have made things much worse for trying. Look no further than the War on Drugs. It's been clear for decades that by every objective measure it's a (barbaric, costly) accelerant for exactly the kinds of social problems it was conceived to fight. But it's still deeply unpopular to say that.
- jwallaceparker 15y ago
  >> Look no further than the War on Drugs. It's been clear for decades that by every objective measure it's a (barbaric, costly) accelerant for exactly the kinds of social problems it was conceived to fight. But it's still deeply unpopular to say that. I think you're right about the War on Drugs being a failure but wrong about this being an unpopular viewpoint. A Zogby poll referenced here shows 76% of respondents think the War on Drugs is a failure: http://civilliberty.about.com/od/drugpolicy/p/War-on-Drugs-Facts.htm http://civilliberty.about.com/od/drugpolicy/p/War-on-Drugs-F...
  - roc 15y ago
    Perhaps "unpopular" was the wrong way to phrase things. "You don't hear it very often/emphatically from the mainstream media, nor spoken aloud by anyone in a position to change policy, nor spoken aloud by anyone who has a serious desire to gain the positions that could change policy."
  - jerf 15y ago
    It's commonly thought to be a failure, but it's politically incorrect to propose any solution other than doing the same thing we're doing now, only harder. I consider this one of the most common failure cases of government; if they don't stumble on the essentially-correct policy the first time out, it becomes virtually impossible to change it later because it involves someone (possible very large and powerful someones) having to admit they were wrong. For another example where the only acceptable solution is "the same, only more more more", see school reform. "Everybody" knows that isn't going to work, but nothing else is acceptable.

by Cushman 15y ago

Is there a reason why the concept of "security theater" hasn't caught on in the mainstream? It seems like it should be easy to oppose things that make us feel safer but objectively make us less safe.

mooism2 15y ago

Alas too many people ignore other people's objectivity and pay attention to their own feelings instead. And then they notice that many "objective" people say the security measures that make them "safer" really put them at increased "risk", and wonder what hidden agenda these "objective" people have and whose side they're really on.

Jach 15y ago

Seven syllables is too many. But you're right, the article glosses over the bigger issue than the two it mentioned: these measures don't help security and very strong cases can and have been made that it actually hurts security.

martingordon 15y ago

I experienced "security theater" just this past weekend coming back from Nashville. As the line for the x-ray scanner started to grow, they started letting people just go through the metal detectors. Once the line shrunk back down, they started forcing people to go through the scanner again. I opted out of the scanner just as they started letting people go through the metal detector again. The TSA agent told me, "you know these are completely safe and no human sees the pictures anymore, right?" If I had gotten in line just a few seconds later, I wouldn't have had to go through the scanner or be subject to the enhanced pat down. I mentioned this to the TSA agent doing my screening and he said, "sometimes timing is everything". If the scanners are as necessary as they want us to think, I'm glad to know that the chance that my plane gets blown up doesn't depend on how well those scanners work but simply on whether a would-be bomber went through security during a busy period.

hieronymusN 15y ago
I've seen this same scenario in play many times in different airports. In some larger airports (IAH) they only have 1 body scanner but way more volume than it can handle, so they will have two other lines going through standard metal detectors. I just stand in one of those lines and bypass the scanner. The last time I asked a TSA guy how to request a pat down and not go through the scanner he got visibly annoyed and started loudly proclaiming how safe the scanners were, its just an X-ray, yadda yadda.
- clistctrl 15y ago
  I opted out at a scanner in Milwaukee (not as much for health as just generally disagreeing with the concept) it was one of the active millimeter scanners. When I did he proceeded to tell me it wasn't an x-ray scanner, but used radio waves "like your cell phone". At first I was going to comment on the frequency difference, but instead i decided to say "oh i see, so it's radiowaves like my microwave oven?".
pavel_lishin 15y ago
> The TSA agent told me, "you know these are completely safe and no human sees the pictures anymore, right?" Wouldn't the obvious response be, "If nobody sees the results of the detector, why are we walking through it?"
- kiiski 15y ago
  Surely the software can detect anything strange just as well as (or better than) a human could.
  - koenigdavidmj 15y ago
    I'm thinking that you are a bit overconfident in the state of computer vision software.
  - VladRussian 15y ago
    yep, TSA scanners (i mean machines) swapping funny pictures on Facebook. Turing would be proud.

tallanvor 15y ago

I think part of the problem is that a significant portion of the US doesn't fly often enough to be greatly inconvenienced by this. And, of course, the media can always find people willing to say "Well, if it will make us safer..." Imagine the outcry in New York if they announced that they were going to install metal detectors and x-ray machines at the entrance to every subway stop. --That would (hopefully) never be implemented because the number of people who would complain and campaign against such measures would be much higher.

danssig 15y ago
Well, I think we're going to find out as TSA plans to do exactly that.
droithomme 15y ago
In the past I would have agreed. But I've seen the "imagine the outcry" argument brought up, the thing is later implemented, there is brief murmering, police crack down on the few hard core dissenters, then the masses begin to chant "Well of course we have to xray everyone getting on the subway, it's the only way we can be safe."
hieronymusN 15y ago
Well, they did do random bag checks at random subway stops for a while. It was always half-assed and you were not compelled to let them search your bag, you could just turn around and walk a few blocks to the next stop where they were not checking bags. It was all Security Theatre to make all of us here in NYC "feel safer" and let us know the NYPD was "on top of things". From a security standpoint it was absolutely pointless and people did get annoyed.
- spodek 15y ago
  The police still do random bag checks. I've seen them doing them in Union Square within the past month or two. Anyone who declines the search can simply exit and enter the same station from a different entrance. They make no sense as anything related to security.
15y ago

Alex3917 15y ago

"Is there a reason why the concept of 'security theater' hasn't caught on in the mainstream?" If Americans were intelligent enough to understand the concept, it probably wouldn't exist in the first place.

dahjelle 15y ago

I suspect it is the same reason that "auto repair theater" or "computer repair theater" or even "movies-that-are-garbage-but-pass-as-entertainment theater" still exist. It is nearly impossible to be well-educated in every facet of one's life, and people need to pick and choose what they become knowledgeable about. Security is both a new enough topic that most people don't realize its importance and a complex enough topic that it isn't easy to really understand. Most people want to be safe; they don't want to understand security.

eof 15y ago

Because the 'mainstream' is still largely controlled by the 'powers that be' and there isn't a clear distinction between those that ultimately influence the ideas in the mainstream and those benefit greatly from a marginalized society. Security theater benefits those in the oligarchy in two ways: highly profitable contracts for expensive machines, and a normalization of invasion of privacy.

roc 15y ago

As far as I can tell, it hasn't caught on because Americans don't want to hear it. We seem to have a deep problem with denial. Sure, people might join in on chastising the TSA for a particular mistreatment of a passenger. But overall they just don't want to think about the idea that there's no real solution to terrorism. They certainly don't want to confront the idea that sometimes, despite setting our minds and hundreds of billions of dollars against a problem, that we can't solve anything; let alone consider the notion that we might have made things much worse for trying. Look no further than the War on Drugs. It's been clear for decades that by every objective measure it's a (barbaric, costly) accelerant for exactly the kinds of social problems it was conceived to fight. But it's still deeply unpopular to say that.

jwallaceparker 15y ago
>> Look no further than the War on Drugs. It's been clear for decades that by every objective measure it's a (barbaric, costly) accelerant for exactly the kinds of social problems it was conceived to fight. But it's still deeply unpopular to say that. I think you're right about the War on Drugs being a failure but wrong about this being an unpopular viewpoint. A Zogby poll referenced here shows 76% of respondents think the War on Drugs is a failure: http://civilliberty.about.com/od/drugpolicy/p/War-on-Drugs-Facts.htm http://civilliberty.about.com/od/drugpolicy/p/War-on-Drugs-F...
- roc 15y ago
  Perhaps "unpopular" was the wrong way to phrase things. "You don't hear it very often/emphatically from the mainstream media, nor spoken aloud by anyone in a position to change policy, nor spoken aloud by anyone who has a serious desire to gain the positions that could change policy."
- jerf 15y ago
  It's commonly thought to be a failure, but it's politically incorrect to propose any solution other than doing the same thing we're doing now, only harder. I consider this one of the most common failure cases of government; if they don't stumble on the essentially-correct policy the first time out, it becomes virtually impossible to change it later because it involves someone (possible very large and powerful someones) having to admit they were wrong. For another example where the only acceptable solution is "the same, only more more more", see school reform. "Everybody" knows that isn't going to work, but nothing else is acceptable.