On Airport Security

I was a skeptic of airport security methods. Why are they reacting so naively to bomb threats, foiled terrorist plans and the 9/11 tragedy? The argument is as follows. If we (and by that I mean airport security) need to respond to these threats, we need to be prepared for what hasn't yet happened, not what has recently been carried out. Why would any smart bomber-to-be carry out the same procedure that the world has seen - the one that people are guarded against? And why are we banning (first) all sharp metal objects and (now) all liquids and gels?

The counterargument may be as follows. Wouldn't it be remarkably stupid if we got caught out once again to the very same methods that were tried a few days earlier? Wouldn't we feel terrible if we got burgled by the same people in the same way - twice in succession - simply because we discounted predictability? And in an uncertain environment, don't you solve problems by looking at both obvious solutions and previously encountered obstacles/solutions first? In the absence of accurate and correctly disseminated information regarding what the exact nature and cause of the recent attacks were - we're probably better off throwing a larger blanket over the space of potential problem areas. If we are wrong about the cause we isolated initially, then it would be disastrous if we implemented a focused plan to address one issue - and then, had to change plans due to this error. We are probably better off working our way from tackling the problem coarsely (all liquids, sharp objects) before we drill down to specifics, confirm these hypotheses - and then properly distribute this information, and relax security measures in certain areas.

In this situation, the false negative is a lot worse than the false positive; even if the cost of this exercise is our convenience.

I am still a skeptic of airport security methods. For various reasons. Just not this one.