[palmer]

The elegance of Gilmore's thinking is that knowing someone's ID does not prevent the person from committing a terrorist act. The 9/11 hijackers had driver's licenses. Knowing someone's identity, as Gilmore argues it, adds less to a security than it takes away from a traveler's protection from authority that might oppress simply because it can.

That's not very elegant, but I agree with the first part, requiring ID's adds nothing to security. As Schneier says, if the government has a list of bad guys, why are they waiting for them to show up at the airport?

[Polybius]

...........but I agree with the first part, requiring ID's adds nothing to security. As Schneier says, if the government has a list of bad guys, why are they waiting for them to show up at the airport?

Showing ID can help stop "bait and switch" schemes where a ticket is bought under the name of "Paul Smith" and a very Arab-looking Abdul al-Bombzawi waltzes aboard the aircraft without anybody even asking him his name.

[BigBobber]

That's not very elegant, but I agree with the first part, requiring ID's adds nothing to security. As Schneier says, if the government has a list of bad guys, why are they waiting for them to show up at the airport?

Interesting. So are you arguing that people allowed into secure areas of the airport, like baggage handlers, should not be required to have IDs? Anyone can go onto the tarmac and load stuff onto a plane?

Requiring IDs is one part of the equation, making sure the IDs are hard to forge is the other part. Maybe the second part needs improvement, but that doesn't mean you throw out the first part.

[Old Professer]

The use of "elegance" here hinges on the previous analysis of his type, and it is in a mathematical sense where the knots are all tied and no loose ends remain to be seen.