The debate hosted by The Economist that I wrote about earlier is now over.
And the proposition “This house believes that changes made to airport security since 9/11 have done more harm than good” has won overwhelmingly.
Voters have roundly declared that the frustrations, the delays, the loss of liberty and the increase in fear that characterise their interactions with airport-security procedures vastly outweigh the good these procedures achieve. For some, indeed, the benefits are essentially non-existent: any sensible terrorist can find a work-around or choose a different point of attack, as Bruce Schneier explains. And so the widely expressed hope is that changes made to security in the (near) future will make the whole regime less reactive, more rational, more flexible and more intelligence-driven. The results of this debate suggest that these changes should be made with some urgency: passengers are angry.
Related articles
- Bruce Schneier hands former TSA boss his ass (boingboing.net)
- Friday Fun Flight Link: TSA Trashed by Bruce Schneier (reason.com)
- Nice description of how traveling in America now mimics our worst stereotypes of authoritarian regimes (amanwithaphd.wordpress.com)
- Aviation Security Debate: Bruce Schneier V. Kip Hawley (Former TSA Boss) (tech.slashdot.org)





