For all the understandable outrage, this seems like a genie that will be very hard to put back in the bottle.

What politician is going to risk canning a security protocol when there's a not-unreasonable chance of a civilian airplane being blown up in the next few years? Who wants to be the politician that has to explain, after several hundred people died, why they canned any device or protocol which may have helped stopped the attack, however remote the likelihood?

I'm not saying it's rational or appropriate, I'm saying it's politically untenable, regardless of the horror stories like the one posted.

Perhaps airlines should offer 'enhanced' or 'standard' security flights, and people can choose whether they fly on a plane where everyone has pat downs or scans, or whether they don't. At least that way there would be a choice...