It’s Christmastime.
People travel to see family and friends.
And of course, that means being violated by the TSA.
All in the name of safety, of course.
Do you really think any of those measures actually improve safety and security? Vanity Fair has a revealing article on the security theater. (h/t Slashdot)
To a large number of security analysts, this expenditure makes no sense. The vast cost is not worth the infinitesimal benefit. Not only has the actual threat from terror been exaggerated, they say, but the great bulk of the post-9/11 measures to contain it are little more than what Schneier mocks as “security theater”: actions that accomplish nothing but are designed to make the government look like it is on the job. In fact, the continuing expenditure on security may actually have made the United States less safe.
[…]
Security theater, from this perspective, is an attempt to convey a message: “We are doing everything possible to protect you.” When 9/11 shattered the public’s confidence in flying, Slovic says, the handful of anti-terror measures that actually work—hardening the cockpit door, positive baggage matching, more-effective intelligence—would not have addressed the public’s dread, because the measures can’t really be seen. Relying on them would have been the equivalent of saying, “Have confidence in Uncle Sam,” when the problem was the very loss of confidence. So a certain amount of theater made sense. Over time, though, the value of the message changes. At first the policeman in the train station reassures you. Later, the uniform sends a message: train travel is dangerous. “The show gets less effective, and sometimes it becomes counterproductive.”
I was at a credit union today. While waiting for the teller I saw a placard discussing their measures regarding identity theft. I forget the exact wording, but one word stood out to me: “feel”. It spoke about how difficult it is to “feel safe” (in a post-9/11 world, referencing the PATRIOT Act and how it changed banking regulations). And you see, that’s what it’s all about: trying to feel safe. Not actually doing anything that actually will make us safe, just a feeling of safety, even if it’s a lie.
Stuff From Hsoi 
Most of what motivates people to “do something” about personal safety or emergency preparedness is that desire to feel safe. The desire to feel safe, as a result of confidence in your training and equipment, motivates many CHL/prepper types.
The easiest approach – the one most people take – is to task someone else to do the job (police & gov’t), don’t ask any questions about how they do it or if they are good at it, check the box “done”, and go back to watching sports on TV and playing Farmville. Those people are actually preferable to the “can’t you shoot the gun out of his hand?” crowd, who sit on the sidelines and have no relevant experience or knowledge, but are allowed to shape the policies that dictate what the do-ers can and can’t do, or even the terms used to discuss incidents. The worst example of this is the gov’ts absolute refusal to label the Ft. Hood shooter a terrorist and acknowledge that his belief in the teachings of a radical cleric was his motivation to act.
True. I shouldn’t say there isn’t a desire to feel safe because yes, that’s ultimately what we all seek and that’s OK. It’s when people undertake measures that lead to a false sense of safety — you might feel safe, but you’re truly no safer or perhaps are less safe than before. That’s a problem.
And your mention of the “farm it out to those who don’t understand”. Well.. see the current discussion on SOPA:
https://blog.hsoi.com/2011/12/17/these-are-the-people-making-uninformed-decisions/