[knodi123]

That is correct. On an unrelated note, can I interest you in purchasing a rock that prevents bear attacks?

It's all very well to talk about the attacks that were quietly prevented. However, international terrorism is a well-studied problem, and there are several countries who have to deal with it, and they are trying a small variety of approaches. We don't have to speculate in a vacuum.

At least speaking of aviation security, we can pretty confidently say that the billions of dollars we have spent have, largely, accomplished nothing but political theater.

As an actual security expert who has studied this issue in depth concluded:

> Since 9/11, approximately three things have potentially improved airline security: reinforcing the cockpit doors, passengers realizing they have to fight back and -- possibly -- sky marshals. Everything else -- all the security measures that affect privacy -- is just security theater and a waste of effort.

[bruu_]

I don't think apprehending them in advance before they ever get to the airport is security theater, and that's what this article addresses.

[knodi123]

Apprehending them in advance isn't really what occurs, though. Rather, you spend billions of dollars putting up elaborate defenses against the previous successful plot. And you sacrifice as much liberty and privacy as possible in the name of anti-terrorism, but then you use your new powers for non-terrorism purposes.

I mean, look at the USA's terrorism laws. 99% of arrests from the TSA or the Patriot Act are related to things that had nothing to do with terrorism.

It's all just theater unless you can show that countries without that level of paranoia and invasiveness are getting attacked much more often. And I don't think that's the case.