Originally Posted by artemis

I think that's a big part of the problem. The DHS in many ways is like a carpenter with only a hammer: everything they see is a nail. OF COURSE nothing could be more important than improving security! It never occurs to them that perhaps that's not true. Did they ever stop to think that perhaps the public would prefer to face the very small risk of a laptop bomb going off on a plane in order to enjoy the convenience of being able to travel with their camera and Kindle in the plane cabin? Maybe not every potential security threat needs a response.

What happened in Nice at the Bastille Day celebration was horrible, but in the aftermath I didn't see anyone serious proposing greatly restricting access to trucks, even though that would certainly prevent that particular form of attack from happening again. Ditto pressure cookers and the Boston Marathon bombings. Why can't responses to potential aviation threats be measured and proportionate to the actual danger?