As a SLF I'll keep it wift and to the point here. Part of what I do is to work in IT security (where security is just as much an euphemism as in the airport kind of security). Where many people err is in recognising security properly.
Airport security is actually proper security, the way it is intended to function. Like with all other operations, follow the money and you will find the answer. The airports and airlines can not exist without the crucial ingredient: the passanger that pays for the show and thus generate the business.
So how is today's airport security good security? It convinces the layman that flying is indeed safe. Given all the hoopla and strange security measures, this has to be a generally safe thing, not? This keeps the audience coming, and the number of accidents stemming from things security should have caught onto at a fairly low and acceptable rate.
Like all security measures you see at the airport and onboard, all these are simple reactionary measures put in place to give half a nod to the fact that we don't want last weeks nuthead from the headlines to repeat him/herself just now. (The shoe carnival after whatshisname from the UK wanted to blow himself up with items embedded in shoe, no knives after 9/11 since that was the method at that time, etc., positive confirmation of luggage and owner after PanAm and a few others).
You will rarely find authorities putting down security measures that will interfere with the revenue model of operations (hence glassbottles in tax free, and perfume that in cases should would be strong enough work as pepper spray if applied correct, etc.).
So what does this have to do with making ecurity actually being security? It protects the business, the revenue, and gives the business the appearance of being impregnable to nutters and others wanting to disrupt it, this making granny and the family feel warm and fuzzy about how securely they are taken from A to B, given how much of what they hear at the airport is this or that due to security reasons, new security regulations, etc.
What does this have to do with security from the standpoint fo wanting to make sure harmfull items cannot be carried onboard and actually securing the revenue model from real threat? Very little. If that was the case shops would be pre-checkin to facilitate taxfree going in checked luggage, returants with glass/cutlery would be pre-security to make sure noone could get less friendly objects onboard.
So next time time someone promises great security or berates security, ask yourself this: security for who, protecting what?
-A