Originally Posted by
Globaliser
The attack, rather, is on the false logic of taking one statement of the view of a person who does not work in the field of counter-terrorism and is not (so far as I can see) qualified to express any views about that, and of immediately accepting that as superior to the considered views and advice of those who have spent decades in the field. As I said, if you want to get the idiots who make these rules to understand the obviously superior logic of Bruce Schneier's views on this, just sack all those whose life's work is the pursuit of terrorism, and let a computer expert handle the terrorists instead.
So please would you point me to the analysis from someone who is qualified to make such analysis (with some justification for why he is so qualified) which shows how Bruce Schneier's analysis is wrong? I can find absolutely no fault in the logic. Is he perhaps making an assumption that is wrong? I can't see any.
A politician or political appointee simply asserting that it is so is not sufficient.