One of the terms I use a lot is the psychological term "cognitive dissonance", the situation where what we say and what we do conflict. In today's San Francisco Chronicle,columnist Johnathan Gurwitz really nails the latest in terrorism theater from TSA.
As it struggles to gain support for its "see something, say something" campaign, TSA is in the process of prosecuting an airline pilot for pointing out weaknesses in security at San Francisco airport. Interestingly enough, the security flaws the pilot points out are well known and have been commented on by security experts as far back as the airline hijackings of the 1970's. TSA continues to treat ordinary passengers as potential terrorists while ignoring ground staff that have easy access to secure areas and aircraft.
A basic security principle is defense in depth. No single security measure can ensure absolute safety, so the wise security practitioner layers a number of systems in an attempt to compensate for the flaws in each through the synergy of the whole. By focusing primarily on passengers, TSA has left gaping holes in the security of our air terminals. By punishing those that dare to point out these holes, TSA suggests its not really interested in gaining the support of the public through its "see something, say something" campaign.