I was flying from Richmond, VA to Denver, Co, and was told to take all of my electronics out and into a different bin. I'm a photographer, so this was kind of a bitch- my computer bag is full of cables, adapters, cards, everything conceivable. My case made it a bit easier- there's a spare compartment that snaps off of the main case. However, I did notice one peculiarity:

My SLR. Before 9/11, i found it standard practice in international travel to be required to either (A) take the lens off of the camera, for inspection, or (B) snap a picture to prove that it's a working camera. Now, digital cameras can be passed through a x-ray without ruining film, however, so this practice is no longer required.

This disappoints me, because I was hoping to eventually have a healthy stock of pictures of security officials, and it would make an interesting show. Now, I hate to think what would happen if i were to take a picture of a security official in this day and age. . .

Anyhoo, I'm surprised because they make you take out your equipment, but not prove that it works. It used to be that you'd have to turn your laptop on, snap your camera, to prove that it wasn't a bomb in the shape and size of electronics. Now, perhaps their scanning equipment is sophisticated to the point where they can reliably test for the densities of explosive materials, however, it seems insane that they're taking this extra level of "precaution" without any justification.

It's not the levels of security that bother me. International travelers, especially those who've been going through Europe since before 9/11, understand that airport security can sometimes wield quite the microscope. The problem in America is that Europeans have been dealing with bomb threats, terrorism, and undesirable hijinks for a lot longer. Their security is a highly efficient laboratory of security professionals.

America's airports more closely resemble a high school science class. The people barely know what they're doing, the equipment has been explained to them in a most basic sense and they're not expected to do much more than meet a rubric.

I have friends who work in the TSA. Their contempt for the travelers parallels the traveler's frustrations with them; they hate being there, complain incessantly of the traveler's ignorance of the rules and regulations (which we all know are subject to change and individual interpretation), and have a serious authority complex (might have something to do with the felt badges...)

The one thing that's clear and indisputable: there's no model for efficiency, in fact, the prevailing attitude seems to be that efficiency decreases security.