Talk:Security theater

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on August 26, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.


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)

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] " 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)