Schneier is effective because he tells a different side of the story from most. The civil libertarian angle is already pretty well covered. People take it as a security versus liberty tradeoff and the population has, in general, resoundingly chosen to favor security. I don't think there are any new arguments to be made there. The civil libertarians will say that this stuff is bad, the TSA will say that it's necessary to keep us safe, and nothing will really happen.
Schneier is different because he's an expert in security and he lays out just why the TSA's approach is bad security. Not because it infringes on liberties, but because it's just not effective, and the money could be used more effectively. This approach is, I believe, the only way to convince an unreasonably frightened American public to back change.
Schneier has less expertise in airport security than other professional security and law enforcement people who also disagree strongly with the TSA's approach to airport security.
My point isn't that "it's bad security" is a losing argument; my point is that Schneier isn't the only qualified person making that argument.
If a half-dozen more qualified individuals step up to make the same arguments, perhaps the inclusion of Schneier would prove redundant. I don't see those people lining up to make those arguments, and I see plenty lining up to defend the current state or try to make it worse.
It also helps to hear from someone who starts from the perspective of "only do things that work and are worth the cost", rather than someone who starts from the perspective of "do anything that could possibly make a difference, it couldn't hurt (given that we don't place any value on anything other than security)".
When you get down to it, there are broad and poignant parallels between airport and computer security, and similar problems with each. Both fields have tried and true, yet difficult-to-implement best practices (well-trained screeners a la Israel, and operational security such as "don't open that shady email"). Both industries suffer from a proliferation of charlatans, and both industries have customers who are more concerned with the appearance of doing something useful, than going through the pain of implementing actually useful best practices.
Schneier's as well-qualified as any to speak to the stupidity that pervades both industries.
That may be true, but Schneier is also a good figure head for a vocal minority. Schneier may be able to throw around his weight better, or may be more skilled at debating the broader issues.
"Schneier is different because he's an expert in security and he lays out just why the TSA's approach is bad security."
My question is how did it happen that Schneier was invited in the first place to testify? Did he propose it to them and got picked (and now withdrawn)? Did congressional staffers choose him?
"Schneier is different because he's an expert in security and he lays out just why the TSA's approach is bad security."
Expert compared to?
He's been quoted and he is well known. But I've been quoted and I'm well known in what I'm good at. But there are others who know what I know. But they aren't as good at promotion as I am.
Schneier is different because he's an expert in security and he lays out just why the TSA's approach is bad security. Not because it infringes on liberties, but because it's just not effective, and the money could be used more effectively. This approach is, I believe, the only way to convince an unreasonably frightened American public to back change.