Airport Security Debate: Bruce Schneier Kicks Butt!

The Economist has been hosting a debate on airport security for the past 10 days.  The motion:

This house believes that changes made to airport security since 9/11 have done more harm than good.

Defending the motion: Bruce Schneier, who should be well known to readers of this blog.
Opposing the motion: Kip Hawley, former TSA Administrator.

The debate has been lively.  For me, the arguments were familiar; the debate has essentially been held in a much less formal way over the past several years, through the many writings of Schneier, Hawley, and many others.  It's been a real pleasure to see Mr. Schneier make his arguments, though – he's got a real flair for exposition.

The debate is now over, though.  The motion has been carried: 89% of the votes were “aye”.  Mr. Schneier carried the day, rather dramatically.  Adam Barnes was the moderator.  An excerpt from his announcement of the winner:

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.

Now if only our (insert your own epithets) Congresscritters would listen up.