Talk:Security theater

message: The article lacks any references for the main subject, which is "security theater" as a term, its meaning, its usage, and most importantly its social and political context. There are two references that support incidental points that are not inherently about the term "security theater". I've tagged the article as unreferenced. If no references can be found for the core statments made, then the unreferenced sections will have to be significantly cut back or removed altogether. Note that we need sources beyond the meaning of the term, as otherwise it would only be a dictionary definition. (Wikipedia doesn't allow dictionary-definition articles.) — Saxifrage ✎ 17:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of references 

message: By using the picture of the TSA statement regarding liquids and gels, it seems indicative (to me, at least) that this is a main example of security theater.  I really do not see the encyclopedic quality of this picture as it relates to the article in the first place, let alone using it as the featured example, like the implication seems to be.  First, that picture itself contains the description that the notice was released after a "plot was uncovered to detonate ten airliners over the Atlantic Ocean" using liquids and/or gels.  Now, perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but wouldn't the screening for these substances be at least accomplishing some security goal?  The security theater article itself begins, in the first sentence, by saying that security theater are "security countermeasures that provide the feeling of security while doing little or nothing to actually improve security."  While the term "little" is, at best, impossible to define in this context, these security measures (the screening of liquids and gels) are certainly not accomplishing nothing.  Airports screen for explosive devices which can be used with a bomb to detonate an airplane, and I doubt anyone would argue that that screening process does "little or nothing to actually improve security."  And, finally, the act of screenings for liquids and gels is not even mentioned anywhere in the article, further characterizing the image as out-of-place.  My suggestion: find a better image to use as the center piece of this article, or remove it altogether. GCD1 (talk) 19:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The liquid explosive that caused the war on liquids is acetone peroxide, extremely dangerous to produce and handle and also very difficult to stabilize. It would have been outright impossible to mix it on the plane, the law enforcement claims were totally ridiculous. So yes, the liquid ban is a very good example of security theater, used to get more funding and power to law enforcement.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.48.159.253 (talk) 15:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Its just one of many examples of TSA security theater and actually a pretty good one.  Does anyone really believe that banning water makes us safer?  Banning water, toothpaste and other liquids accomplishes nothing other than to make people feel good that TSA is doing something.  Really a classic example. Dman727 (talk) 14:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

text:  Sounds to me conspiracists are taking over Wikipedia. What is the conspiracy though? To sell more bottled water? "TATP has been described as a common terrorist bomb by Hayden (2004), and it achieved notoriety through Shoe Bomber Richard Reid, who planned to use it on an American Airlines flight in December 2001." https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/about-us/lab/forensic-science-communications/fsc/oct2006/research/2006_10_research01.htm  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2149:872E:F500:A48E:5E2E:C08C:2D40 (talk) 11:36, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is liquid/gel screening really the best example of "security theater" available? 

message: Wouldn't the 1950s 'duck and cover' drills in U.S. public schools (ducking under a desk to avoid a Russian atomic blast) be a good historical example of security theater?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.142.181.63 (talk) 21:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It would, but it would also be original research. скоморохъ 14:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I would remove the duck and cover mention, because duck and cover had real benefits, improving the survival rate of the initial blast.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.48.159.253 (talk) 15:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  how about 'duck and cover'? 

message: I saw that in a recent edit, that the first sentence was changed to a slightly diffirent meaning by using the words "intended to". I have not read the book that originally coined the phrase, but I am wondering if there has to be intent. Is that how the phrase is being used in general usage? Psu256 (talk) 18:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm, are you reading it to include "while doing little or nothing to actually improve security" as part of the intent?  If so, it should be rephrased.  But I'd say the intent "to provide the feeling of improved security" is essential to the concept. —Tamfang (talk) 08:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: " intended to "?

message: "Periodic make-believe security-related announcements" deter would-be shoplifters, but they have little effect on the perceived secured-ness of the store on the part of the customers.  This is a much better example of panopticism than anything else.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.14.206.4 (talk) 23:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflating security theater and [[panopticism]] 

message: This whole section smacks of original research and lacks any citations whatsoever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.64.118.61 (talk • contribs) 22:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Benefits?!? 

message: I don't know how to do wikipedia citations, but here's where Felten talks about security theater: http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/felten/security-theater - if someone wants to cite it and remove one of those bloody 'citation needed' items, be my guest.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by MobileOak (talk • contribs) 23:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation Needed 

message: Looking over the discussion for article deletion, there wasn't much discussion, just a couple dozen sentence opinions, many on the order of, "I like it" or "I don't like it". A number of votes were made by editors with few other contributions to Wiki before or after , , , .
1) As the article points out, even the appearance of security, is in fact, a form of security. ("...perception of security is sometimes more important than security itself") In this way, the term is an oxymoron. I.e., "security theater" really does provide security, and therefore doesn't follow the article premise that it is "doing little or nothing to actually improve security".
2) The references are weak in several ways. But as an example, 3 of 16 are to "Boing Boing", a rambling, informal blog site on the level of "Hey, I noticed this cool problem."
3) The article seems to be a platform for Bruce Schneier , his newsletter (in the external links and his book Beyond Fear: Thinking Sensibly About Security in an Uncertain World. For those who argued in the discussion for article deletion that this phrase is somehow important and widely used, it's interesting to note that in 1 1/2 years since it was created this "important" book's article has been edited exactly 2 times — once to change its name.
4) The "examples" are fraught with problems. "Duck and cover" was NOT completely useless (as noted above) (in fact, in an earthquake it may have saved my life, because I dived under a desk). If machine guns in public places are "theater" sometimes, they certainly are widely used theater, and in situations such as Mumbai, seemed to be pretty practical. Pointing out that there are problems in software design and implementation ... that's usually the case with complicated software.
In sum, this is a marginal topic, used by Schnieier for promotion, with very poor references. There's no special reason to treat this societal confusion as any different than confusion in any other policy. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 12:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Delete this article

message: The following was recently added to the article, with citation.
* US major league baseball and NFL football began security theatre patdowns by their 2011 seasons. For example, the National Football League began a system of pre-game patdowns of all spectators by low-paid temporary employees. 
Another edit removed the claim and said, in the edit summary, "blog's not a valid source..."  I'm not aware that Techdirt is a blog.  It would seem to be one of many online/electronic news sources with articles of, no doubt, varying quality.  But it would seem to meet WP:V and WP:CS so seems like the claim should stay.  Let's discuss on the Talk page per WP:BRD.  Cheers.  N2e (talk) 19:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  NFL Football and MLB Baseball security theatre 

message: Another major one that has come out lately is "active shooter training" which local police agencies are plying the fearful with, an effort to make people believe that "mitigating measures" can be taken to "protect yourselves" against shooters while also trying to make people believe that such shootings are far more common than they actually are.
Police commit this brand of security theater to convince people that the police in their area are needed, that they have plans to save people's lives, and that you should obey your police without question despite the core illegality of the police's orders.
They commit such theater also to not only keep people living in fear and obeying the police but also to ensure that their budgets and fascist actions which violate people's civil rights and human rights are necessary to "keep America safe." They rely upon people being gullible and fearful, manipulating people's racist ideologies and religious bigotries.
But for the extant article, the existing text is far short of offering all the examples of what fascist States are committing against its citizens and subjects around the world, typically for political and economic gain. Damotclese (talk) 02:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lots could be added 

message: The reference for the new section on speed limits is not a valid one. I propose that we revert that proposed update until a legitimate citation can be provided. Damotclese (talk) 17:52, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  ibiblio org and speed limits 

message: The NFL (and College Football) Clear Bag Policies really suck. It is nothing BUT security theater. I mean, some terrorist could carry a bomb in a clear bag, and when he reaches the checkpoint, he takes out a gun and shoots all of the bag inspectors/security guards before proceeding into the stadium to perpetrate war. These "clear bag policies" are really ineffective. Bradenbear424 (talk) 19:41, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't like the policy either, but to mention it in this article, you need a reliable source that describes it as security theater.  Even then it might not be notable enough for inclusion. --Trovatore (talk) 19:44, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about the NFL Clear Bag Policy (also standard in College Football)? 

message: The topic reads like a pejorative against certain security measures. It does not discuss the benefit of security measures, rather assuming without evidence that they are useless. They may in fact be useless, I do not know.  Are there studies? This is the place to list them. -- GreenC 13:52, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logic fallacy 

message: This does not seem to belong here without a reference.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cxmplex (talk • contribs) 07:32, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  and the wearing of masks on airplanes during the [[COVID-19 pandemic]]. 

message: — Assignment last updated by FlareNight (talk) 18:20, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Seeing Race