Right. As I said in my comment to the original article:
'Most of this is good security advice. This is not: "certain travelers, at TSA spotters’ discretion, [should] be exempt from screening altogether." In security, that sort of middle-ground is dumb: either the barrier should exist or it should not; if it should exist we should not have a habit of whisking people through it. Perhaps you think that there should be a barrier which checks carry-on luggage for guns: your security expectation is that nobody should have a gun on the plane. Suppose a terrorist wants to violate this expectation and get on a plane with a gun. First, he's going to print fake boarding passes to test the security line. There is no gun; he's just going through security, going to the restroom on the other side, then coming back out. He wants to know who is pulled out and whisked through -- perhaps light-skinned women, perhaps pilots, perhaps people in suits. He will then make this pilgrimage in a pilot's uniform, or inviting a female terrorist as his accomplice, perhaps even dressing her as a flight attendant. Maybe he will find that sympathetic screeners always cave to a disheveled suited man with a story, "I slept in, I have a really important business meeting, my flight leaves in ten minutes, can you help me?" If he finds any reliable mechanism to be whisked through the line, it's game over. He only has one shot to bring the gun through the screening, but he has unlimited tries to figure out what will make him look respectable enough to get that free pass.'