First: this "Economist Debates" format is a wonderful idea, but questionably executed. Its layout could use quite a bit of rethinking, focusing on improving usability for those who've only stumbled onto the debate after its conclusion (as I assume most of us have). I'm guessing that the format felt more natural and threadlike to those who were along for the ride from the get-go. But there's real value in being able to read the debate, after the fact, from start to finish in an intuitive and easy-to-follow fashion.
As for the content of the debate: I've been following Schneier's commentary on airport security for at least a few months now. What he's saying is no surprise to me. He's preaching to a choir of which I am a fast and firm member. On the other hand, I'm actually amazed at the willingness of his opponent (Kip Hawley) to concede some points that I would have thought were held as unshakable dogma amongst the TSA-apologist set. To me, genuine progress was made in this debate. This was not a case of two people's arguing pre-fixed talking points in circles around each other. This felt more like a real discussion, with give and take.
Kudos to The Economist for hosting this debate, and for attempting to innovate on the printed-debate format. To date, it's a format that nobody's quite nailed. (Nor, for that matter, has The Economist here). But it's an interesting step forward.
I suspect it is significant that Kip Hawley is former administrator. He is no longer being paid to stick to the party line in the face of reason and fact. A debate with the current administrator would be a display of colossal stupidity.
I agree with the format. While great in theory, it was poor in execution. It didn't help that the submitter linked to the "end" of the debate either.
Having said that, I actually had to click on "How an Economist debate works" link, which is directly under the timeline. Some work on said timeline would help tremendously in this particular format.
FWIW, as someone who has been following Schneier's commentary on airport security for at least a few years now, Schneier and Hawley have discussed many of these issues previously: http://www.schneier.com/interview-hawley.html
You need to click on the different days in the calendar to view the "remarks" for that day, and then scroll down past the synopsis of each person's remarks, and the moderator's remarks, to get to the actual arguments.
As for the content of the debate: I've been following Schneier's commentary on airport security for at least a few months now. What he's saying is no surprise to me. He's preaching to a choir of which I am a fast and firm member. On the other hand, I'm actually amazed at the willingness of his opponent (Kip Hawley) to concede some points that I would have thought were held as unshakable dogma amongst the TSA-apologist set. To me, genuine progress was made in this debate. This was not a case of two people's arguing pre-fixed talking points in circles around each other. This felt more like a real discussion, with give and take.
Kudos to The Economist for hosting this debate, and for attempting to innovate on the printed-debate format. To date, it's a format that nobody's quite nailed. (Nor, for that matter, has The Economist here). But it's an interesting step forward.