Dear
Reader,
Our debate has
now ended and
those
supporting the
motion have
won
handsomely.
This house
does believe
that "changes
made to
airport
security since
9/11 have done
more harm than
good".
I thought Kip
Hawley would
have the
tougher role
as the
opposer, but I
have still
been surprised
at the
vehemence and
quantity of
the views
expressed in
favour. 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.
Many thanks
are due to our
two debaters,
Bruce Schneier
and Mr Hawley.
Particular
thanks, if
that is fair,
to Mr Hawley,
who was not
given an easy
ride by
commenters.
Thanks too to
all those
commenters who
felt aggrieved
at treatment
they had
received in
airports, but
managed to
keep the
discourse
civil. And
although
voting is
over, the
floor remains
open for your
further
comments until
midnight
tonight. I
have been a
fascinated
onlooker
throughout and
I hope you got
something out
of it too.
Our new debate
begins next
week and we
very much hope
you will join
us then. We'll
be in touch
soon with
details. |
|
|
 |
 |
Moderator |
Adam
Barnes
Editor,
The Economist
online
and Gulliver
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Defending
the motion |
|
 |
Bruce
Schneier
Author,
"Liars and
Outliers:
Enabling the
Trust Society
Needs to
Survive"
|
|
|
|
 |
Opposing
the motion |
|
 |
Kip
Hawley
Author,
"Permanent
Emergency:
Inside the TSA
and the Fight
for the Future
of American
Security"
|
|
|
|
| Debate
Schedule
|
March 30th
Winner
announcement |
|
|
|
