Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Of course the same thing happens with explosion detectors, where initially it picked up many similar compounds, and eventually started getting much more discrete, and the probability that it actually caught something of significance went from "not really" to "might actually be something real". Unless you've got some hard data on false positives, I don't believe it for a minute. As far as I can tell the equipment's…
I don't have hard data (the actual details are often considered confidential), but for the marketing claims of the various makers who all trumpet greater selectivity and the rejection of false positives. Which makes sense, as security is a huge, incredibly competitive industry, and these people are all competing for the world's paranoia dollars. Because the TSA gained nothing wasting their time on this. There are the…
Putting aside the merit of the idea of that the government bidding process ends with purchase of the best product, it's worth noting that just like with the government agents, the manufacturer isn't actually liable to anyone who suffers when its machines produce a false positive. Insofar as the manufacturer has any incentive to improve in this regard, its incentive comes from the same people who are putting on this security theater.
> Because the TSA gained nothing wasting their time on this. [blah blah] What did the TSA, NYPD, FBI, and whoever else gain from this giant waste of time?
Not sure why you threw this in here but it's so wrong that it's kind of hard to know where to begin. First, the superficial and obvious: TSA and NYPD are paid overtime. They had MONEY to gain from this exercise. Their financial incentives are exactly opposed to those of the person they are detaining.
Less superficial, perhaps equally obvious: a bureaucracy does stuff because that's the stuff the bureaucracy does. It's a big, mindless machine whose prime directive is to continue to exist. Everyone understands that they need to be seen to be DOING SOMETHING, and there are plenty of true believers who think doing that something is the most important thing in the world. That's the reason for some much of the crud we deal with now.
You might have made the mistake of thinking we're dealing with fully rational actors here. Congratulations if you've never worked for a bureaucracy and you don't get any of this.
> Something triggered on a molecule or taggant that they couldn't easily exclude, so they tried to help him assist them in excluding it. He couldn't, so they had to exhaust all avenues.
Orwell would be proud.