I certainly haven't been empowered to speak on behalf of everyone else here, but, what the heck, I'm game ...

We agree that there is no such thing as "perfect" security. The question becomes, then: for every new procedure that TSA has put in place, is the incremental cost (in time, money, and inconvenience) worth the incremental increase in security? Or, perhaps, have certain procedures made flying less secure?

Consider checked luggage, for example. Before 9/11, it was understood that you could lock your checked bags with any lock you wished. Now, TSA insists that it needs to be able to inspect the inside of any checked bags, which means that passengers are told to only use "approved" locks, or no locks at all, or risk having their private locks forcibly removed. Of course, making the bags easier for TSA to open and inspect also makes it easier for thieves to open and inspect those same bags. How does the incremental increase in travel safety resulting from check bag inspection compare with the incremental decrease in "security" (in a much broader sense of the word) caused by greater likelihood of theft from bags? It's a legitimate question --- and one about which I honestly don't know what to think.

Heck, TSA understands this idea as well. TSA used to ban small lighters from carry-on bags. Now, TSA allows them --- and the reason given for the change was that the time being spent by TSOs in looking for small lighters was distracting TSOs from the more significant threats. Here, TSA made the judgment that there were more drawbacks than benefits, and changed policies.

Are there policies in place right now which don't seem to provide any added value, or perhaps even provide negative value, to the security process? Your answers and mine will differ. But the discussion is worth having.