Talk:Security theater

Early comments

Edited "Definition of security theater" for clarity 71.228.113.247 00:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I've created a redirect at Security theater for this term. Since Bruce Schneier coined the term under that spelling, I wonder where the article belongs? --FOo 16:37, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Martin McKeay's Network Security Blog had an interview of Bruce Schneier wherein he stated that he invented the term after his book. See http://www.mckeay.net/secure/2006/08/network_security_podcast_episo_35.html and listen to the podcast (http://media.libsyn.com/media/mckeay/nsp-081506-ep39.mp3) at 14:03 into the show. Jhs 07:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely brilliant. A brand new term (by encyclopedic standards), obviously useful, competently explained. This sort of page is why Wikipedia is better than any other encyclopedia. Rock on!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.168.248.190 (talk • contribs)

Lack of references

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)

Is liquid/gel screening really the best example of "security theater" available?

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)

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)

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)

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)

how about 'duck and cover'?

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)

It would, but it would also be original research. скоморохъ 14:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

I agree, duck and cover wasn't (entirely) security theater. Nobody thought that hiding under a desk would save you from a direct hit by a nuclear weapon, but the vast majority of buildings affected by an atomic blast are at a greater distance and the desk will protect you from flying debris etc. just like in an earthquake or tornado. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.38.183 (talk) 18:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree that duck and cover needs to be removed; as a legitimate method that would seriously reduce injuries from the overpressure wave, it should not be considered as security theater. The popular perception of duck and cover as security theater comes from insufficient understanding of the nature of nuclear warfare and the characteristics of nuclear explosions, and thus if anything it should be listed as a form of reverse security theater, something that appears useless but actually serves a valid purpose. 72.185.1.157 (talk) 23:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)Wes

" intended to "?

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)

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)

Conflating security theater and panopticism

"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)

NPOV-ness of image

The image of the sign explaining the new "liquids on board" measures does, in its inclusion in this article, go against NPOV. The very very clear implication of its inclusion, though not stated in words, is that these measures were "security theater". A picture speaks a thousand words. Martinp23 12:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Its an undoctored photo, a real actual photo at a TSA checkpoint. Please closely review WP:NPOV. The article does not in any way whatsoever state that these procedures are improper or proper. Thats the very basics of NPOV. The policy of NPOV precludes the article from forcing its pov on the reader, and encourages the reader to form -their own- pov. If in your mind you hear a thousand words, and they don't appear in the article, then the article is doing its job and conforming to policies. Dman727 (talk) 18:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

What does the image lend to the article? The implication of its inclusion is that banning liquids on planes is a pointless secuirty measure, and without a fully verifiable source, that just can't be said by Wikipedia. If, as you seem to want to suggest, the image is just a bit of decoration, it shouldn't be there, as I recall that we avoid images unless relevant to the content. The banning of liquids is not even named in the examples section. Martinp23 20:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Its a graphic illustration of a real security policy that may or may not be subject to "security theater". The article discusses numerous security policies in text form. Just one of those policies in presented graphic form. If we eliminate all text and graphic examples of security policies the concept would be more difficult to comprehend and the article less useful. Does the TSA water ban make us safer, or an exercise is security theater? Well thats up to the reader to decide. Your suggestion of naming this in text form as well is a good one, I'll put some language around when I get a few minutes, as I believe Bruce S. has written about this and should be easy to WP:RS.Dman727 (talk) 20:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

It's also been suggested to me that the image could, potentially, be a copyright violation (and if not is certainly of uncertain status as a derivate work). Similarly it has been suggested that this whole article is simply a content fork of another for the sake of pushing various POVs about the necessity of some security measures - which certainly does seem to be what is happening with this particular image. Martinp23 20:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll do some searches. The TSA water ban has been written about extensively, and in the context of security theater, so this should be easy to add lots of reliable sources and flush this out more as suggest. As for a copyright violation, well I suppose its possibly, but unlikely. The photo appears to be an amateur photo. I'll take a look at the TSA site as photos there as public domain anyway and they are probably of higher quality.Dman727 (talk) 20:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Dman, the article does not even have a verifiable example that would demonstrate that liquids fall under "Security theater", let alone have you proved that this article is not in violation of content forking (WP:FORK). Also, you lack a section on the criticism of Security theater as a belief, and there is a lot. Furthermore, the image would not be a TSA image, but an NWAA image, which is exempt from being automatically Public Domain. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, it is lacking in that right now. As I mention above it has been written about extensively in the security industry as an example of security theater, so it should be discussed in the article in text form and provided with sources. FWIW, I think the article does need some work and needs more reliably sourced examples. NWAA? I'm not sure what that refers to, could you expand? Dman727 (talk

In regards to WP:FORK. What article would this be forking off of? The concept of security theater is not a fork, but a real concept in the security industry. Dman727 (talk) 20:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

There could be a few possibilities of the fork. Seeing as how this is a "criticism of" type page, then the most likely candidate that it could be described as such would be "airport security" related pages. Having a criticism section on the criticism would negate the page being labeled as a fork (which should be a priority). NWAA was a mispeak before. I mean MWAA (Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority), which is the federal group that runs the airport. I hope that helps. If it helps - try to get public domain images of the banned items and not necessarily the signs saying that they are banned. It would do more to emphasis the point. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully I don't believe this to be a POV fork. "Security Theater" is a fairly standard term and its not limited to airport security (although its a fertile ground for examples). I'm not a copyright expert, but I don't believe that a photo of a sign created by a government agency is a copyright issue, as works created by government agencys are generally public domain, and this case the work itself was done by the photographer who relinquised rights. Honestly I think that copyright angle is a bit of stretch in this instance. Take a look at the proposed deletion discussion for this article (linked at top of page). Others discuss the term and I think they may have addressed the POV-Fork issue directly. Nonetheless, I think this article needs alot of cleanup and you are both correct, the photo shouldn't be there without some accompanying text and a better specimen could probably be had. I think I'm going to see if I can do some cleanup sometime over the next week or so if time permits. Cheers. Dman727 (talk) 21:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry too much. Forking is determined by consensus. I'm just trying to give you advice on how to avoid it and where to alter the page. The MWAA is under a different regulation than the standard Federal Government, so that is a question best left for the Wikicommons people. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Benefits?!?

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)

Citation Needed

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)

Delete this article

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], [2], [3], [4].

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."[5]

3) The article seems to be a platform for Bruce Schneier [6], 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)

NFL Football and MLB Baseball security theatre

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.<ref name=td20110921>{{cite news |last=Geigner|first=Timothy |title=NFL Ramps Up Security Theatre |url=http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110919/03450016008/nfl-ramps-up-security-theatre.shtml |accessdate=2011-10-16 |newspaper=TechDirt |date=2011-09-21 }}</ref>

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)

• It does not seem to me as very informative information describing Security Theater, seems more appropriate in the major league baseball and NFL Articles, with a link to this one. It would make even less sense to list here every place that does a patdown and later has someone call it "theater". Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 01:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Lots could be added

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)

ibiblio org and speed limits

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)

What about the NFL Clear Bag Policy (also standard in College Football)?

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)

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)

Logic fallacy

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)

and the wearing of masks on airplanes during the COVID-19 pandemic.

This does not seem to belong here without a reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cxmplex (talk • contribs) 07:32, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Fully agree with the above; that's someones ill-considered 'opinion', not anything based in fact, and furthermore flies in the face of the actual science. It should be removed as not only irrelevant to the subject of the page but also as technically inaccurate. This is no place for anti-vaxxer propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.185.67.146 (talk) 17:48, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Seeing Race

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 August 2023 and 14 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Alternativenonfacist (article contribs). Peer reviewers: FlareNight.

— Assignment last updated by FlareNight (talk) 18:20, 30 November 2023 (UTC)