Bruce Schneier fails to recognize the critical role security theater plays in keeping people safe. His arguments amount to, "people would be just as safe without it" but we have no evidence to that argument, as we have no "lab" with which to test the idea.
But you didn't do what I asked. Can you show me why you think what you said was relevant to today's global and technological landscape? What does the UK's hundreds-year old behavior regarding spying have to do with the NSA today?
The years before 911 are worthless, considering technological developments since then.
And while I agree, the onus is on those spending the money, this isn't your typical experiment. The people spending the money don't get to play with the variables, as the variables include the lives of others. It's a very tough question, how and where scaling back on airport security can work, and the answer isn't simple.
> Bruce Schneier fails to recognize the critical role security theater plays in keeping people safe.
Understanding that it is theater is enough. You realise nobody needed to prove the emperor had no clothes.
> What does the UK's hundreds-year old behavior regarding spying have to do with the NSA today?
Well you brought it up yourself when you said:
> Also, what makes you think the UK hasn't had a global intelligence network since its inception?
My point was simply that it would be inane to assume that any organisation is required to stay around forever, purely by dint of it existing today - let alone one that is giving every indication of careening out of control. Plenty of people are already calling for Clapper to face consequences.
But you didn't do what I asked. Can you show me why you think what you said was relevant to today's global and technological landscape? What does the UK's hundreds-year old behavior regarding spying have to do with the NSA today?